Little-known film about a cross-country flight that is transported to another dimension where time stands still. There are some scientists on board the flight that are responsible for building a new kind of nuclear weapon. They are put on trial in this other dimension by people from the future. It's a talky movie about ideas and Cold War fears that gets a little heavy-handed at times. The "logic" of the prosecutor is riddled with holes. The first half-hour is pretty dull before it slowly starts to pick up. Still, it's nearly an hour into the film before the trial starts. All of the characters are as exciting as cardboard. There are no big actors associated with this, though I did recognize a few faces. It's an interesting idea for a movie or even an episode of the Twilight Zone. I could see Rod Serling doing a lot with it. It's a slog to get through the buildup but the last 20-30 minutes is worth watching.
31 Reviews
A great examination
bkoganbing20 February 2021
This independent film released by United Artists is a real sleeper It asks some
thought provoking questions. The lack of name players in the cast makes it all
the more real. That works many times in movies.
Flight That Disappeared starts out like a bargain basement The High And The Mighty. But among the passengers are scientists Craig Hill, Paula Raymond, and Dayton Lummis. Unexplainedly the propeller driven plane starts rising in altitude beyond what a jet rise to and in rocket ship territory and ground radar loses all communication.
When everyone loses consciousness the three scientists go before a celestial tribunal and are examined about a proposed super atomic bomb they are in the theoretical stage of development. It's quite intense.
The thought provocation comes here. Just what is the role of science and scientists in this world? Is making better weaponry its only purpose. What we do today has a bearing on the life our descendants. It's a representation of those descendants that is doing the examining of our three protagonists.
Production values Flight That Disappeared has not. But it has some great performances from the protagonists and the rest of the cast. This one should not be missed.
One question was there another tribunal called for some Soviet scientists?
Flight That Disappeared starts out like a bargain basement The High And The Mighty. But among the passengers are scientists Craig Hill, Paula Raymond, and Dayton Lummis. Unexplainedly the propeller driven plane starts rising in altitude beyond what a jet rise to and in rocket ship territory and ground radar loses all communication.
When everyone loses consciousness the three scientists go before a celestial tribunal and are examined about a proposed super atomic bomb they are in the theoretical stage of development. It's quite intense.
The thought provocation comes here. Just what is the role of science and scientists in this world? Is making better weaponry its only purpose. What we do today has a bearing on the life our descendants. It's a representation of those descendants that is doing the examining of our three protagonists.
Production values Flight That Disappeared has not. But it has some great performances from the protagonists and the rest of the cast. This one should not be missed.
One question was there another tribunal called for some Soviet scientists?
A longer version of a Twilight Zone episode.
mandagrammy15 May 2020
This film will definitely remind you of a slightly longer Twilight Zone episode. It could be described as an interesting B movie, which would accompany a major film back in the old days. Nothing spectacular about this film, with its barely hidden moral message, but it was a pleasant enough viewing for the short time it was on.
A Bit Too Much Maybe?
gavin694225 March 2012
A cross-country airliner, whose passengers include a nuclear physicist, a rocket expert, and a mathematical genius, is drawn beyond radar range by an unknown, unbreakable force.
Others have compared this film to "The Twilight Zone", and rightly so. I am almost surprised no one from the show was involved in this film, because the plot and political point of view is exactly the same. The only difference is that this is much longer (and maybe not necessarily so -- I can see this story being told in 25 minutes).
If the film has any real flaw, it is that the morality is a bit over the top and extreme. The message is a good one, and one that hardly anyone could disagree with. But it comes off almost preachy and condescending because there is not one ounce of subtlety in it at all. (I am being vague here so as not to spoil anything, though the plot is about as obvious as possible.)
Others have compared this film to "The Twilight Zone", and rightly so. I am almost surprised no one from the show was involved in this film, because the plot and political point of view is exactly the same. The only difference is that this is much longer (and maybe not necessarily so -- I can see this story being told in 25 minutes).
If the film has any real flaw, it is that the morality is a bit over the top and extreme. The message is a good one, and one that hardly anyone could disagree with. But it comes off almost preachy and condescending because there is not one ounce of subtlety in it at all. (I am being vague here so as not to spoil anything, though the plot is about as obvious as possible.)
Despite a bargain-basement budget , this is a pretty cool film.
planktonrules22 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very, very low-budget film about the nuclear age. However, despite having no actors you'll recognize and a cheesy set near the end of the movie, I really liked it and think it's a nice relic about the Cold War and the move to build bigger and badder nuclear bombs. And, regardless of your politics, this was a scary time and a film that questioned all this sure was timely.
"The Flight That Disappeared" plays somewhat like a "Twilight Zone" episode--and there was, around that same time, a show that did seem a bit like the movie. However, instead of an airplane full of folks being stuck in a plane that keeps passing back and forth in time (something that NEVER was explained and was a shortcoming of the episode), this one involves a plane that keeps gaining altitude--and there's nothing the crew can do to stop it! Eventually, the plane is assumed lost--and after all the crew and passengers fall asleep due, seemingly to a lack of oxygen, there is a meeting with three of the passengers and an odd galactic tribunal. Later, however, it seems that they can't prove this really happened...and then, at the end, the twist. I could say more about all this, but I don't want to spoil it.
Despite the budget, the acting was nice, as was the direction. It's really a nice example of a film that does the most with its limited resources. The only negative at all it the female mathematician. She seems to have been included mostly for her sex appeal--especially since her connection to the two scientists was never really established. Still, an interesting film---and one that seems a heck of a lot better than its 4.0 score currently on IMDb.
"The Flight That Disappeared" plays somewhat like a "Twilight Zone" episode--and there was, around that same time, a show that did seem a bit like the movie. However, instead of an airplane full of folks being stuck in a plane that keeps passing back and forth in time (something that NEVER was explained and was a shortcoming of the episode), this one involves a plane that keeps gaining altitude--and there's nothing the crew can do to stop it! Eventually, the plane is assumed lost--and after all the crew and passengers fall asleep due, seemingly to a lack of oxygen, there is a meeting with three of the passengers and an odd galactic tribunal. Later, however, it seems that they can't prove this really happened...and then, at the end, the twist. I could say more about all this, but I don't want to spoil it.
Despite the budget, the acting was nice, as was the direction. It's really a nice example of a film that does the most with its limited resources. The only negative at all it the female mathematician. She seems to have been included mostly for her sex appeal--especially since her connection to the two scientists was never really established. Still, an interesting film---and one that seems a heck of a lot better than its 4.0 score currently on IMDb.
Much Better Than The Usual 60's Sci-Fi Fare
artbreyfogle28 December 2014
A bit slow and preachy, but an interesting tale well worth watching...Actually a more than decent script considering it was shot back in 1961...Second act drags but when they get into the third you sit up and take notice...Don't want to tell all the tale...You'll enjoy watching this yourself...So much junk was produced in this era, it is nice to see something of this quality was shot and produced by Hollywood...The only strange thing is the lost of several international flights lately and how some actually refer to this movie about that situation...All I know is that if I owned the rights to this flick I would mount a minor ad campaign to tie-in with those recent events and sell more copies of "The Flight That Disappeared"...Buckle up and enjoy the ride!
Entertaining Fantasy
Michael_Elliott31 May 2012
The Flight That Disappeared (1961)
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Low-budget but very interesting fantasy/drama about a plane that keeps going higher and higher into the sky but no one on the ground or on-board understands why. I could tell a little more about the plot but that would take away from one's entertainment. This certainly isn't a perfect movie or even a good one but it's got an interesting idea that makes for an entertaining movie. There's no doubt that this isn't going to win any awards but I think fans of the bizarre should have a good time. This thing really plays out like an episode of The Twilight Zone but instead of going into a different galaxy, the plane here just keeps going further up in the sky. I'm not going to spoil why all of this happening but I will say that the final twenty-minutes are the weakest of the film. Considering the small budget, the majority of the running time deals with the variety of passengers and we spend most of the time listening to them talk. We hear about their personal lives, the business their in and of course issues dealing with the atomic bomb, which was a hot subject during this period. The movie's screenplay really does a pretty good job at building up the fantasy elements because you're never fully understanding what's going on or how the plane is going higher. Sure, if you start to think about logics then you can rip the film apart so it's really best that you turn your brain off, sit back and just enjoy. None of the actor's are going to be familiar faces but I thought each of them did fine with their roles. There's certainly nothing too demanding here but the actors fit their parts nicely and manages to make you believe what's going on with their characters. THE FLIGHT THAT DISAPPEARED probably could have benefited from another rewrite and again I think the final twenty-minutes are rather weak. Still, considering what they had to deal with you can't help but feel that the filmmakers did a pretty good job and delivered an entertaining film.
** 1/2 (out of 4)
Low-budget but very interesting fantasy/drama about a plane that keeps going higher and higher into the sky but no one on the ground or on-board understands why. I could tell a little more about the plot but that would take away from one's entertainment. This certainly isn't a perfect movie or even a good one but it's got an interesting idea that makes for an entertaining movie. There's no doubt that this isn't going to win any awards but I think fans of the bizarre should have a good time. This thing really plays out like an episode of The Twilight Zone but instead of going into a different galaxy, the plane here just keeps going further up in the sky. I'm not going to spoil why all of this happening but I will say that the final twenty-minutes are the weakest of the film. Considering the small budget, the majority of the running time deals with the variety of passengers and we spend most of the time listening to them talk. We hear about their personal lives, the business their in and of course issues dealing with the atomic bomb, which was a hot subject during this period. The movie's screenplay really does a pretty good job at building up the fantasy elements because you're never fully understanding what's going on or how the plane is going higher. Sure, if you start to think about logics then you can rip the film apart so it's really best that you turn your brain off, sit back and just enjoy. None of the actor's are going to be familiar faces but I thought each of them did fine with their roles. There's certainly nothing too demanding here but the actors fit their parts nicely and manages to make you believe what's going on with their characters. THE FLIGHT THAT DISAPPEARED probably could have benefited from another rewrite and again I think the final twenty-minutes are rather weak. Still, considering what they had to deal with you can't help but feel that the filmmakers did a pretty good job and delivered an entertaining film.
Average and Very Moralistic Sci-Fi
mrb198028 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
It seems as though all films have some kind of message. (Well, "The Horror of Party Beach" might not have one.) Some movies skim over their message, and some pound it right into your skull. "The Flight that Disappeared" is a film that pounds you with its message during almost the entire film.
Tom (Craig Hill), Marcia (Paula Raymond), and Dr. Morris (Dayton Lummis) are three scientists aboard a commercial flight. They are heading to an important meeting at which they will unveil their plans for a massive new bomb, one that can easily wipe out all people on earth. The plane inexplicably climbs and climbs, eventually beyond its ceiling, and the three find themselves in a shadowy world of the future. There, they are put on trail by a judge (the imperious Gregory Morton) and a jury, who represent the future people who will be killed by the new bomb. The judge decrees that they shall remain in the future world and can never return. The prisoners make an improbable escape and find the plane, which makes a safe landing--several days late.
The three leads are pretty ordinary (Lummis appears irritated most of the time) and the plot is very familiar. The film suffers from a small budget, although the future world is fairly well done. Gregory Morton is so severe that he probably would have scared me when I was a kid. John Bryant plays pilot Hank Norton and probably gives the best performance of the film as he is confounded by the plane's continued climb.
You could do much better than "The Flight that Disappeared", but it's acceptable fantasy fare.
Tom (Craig Hill), Marcia (Paula Raymond), and Dr. Morris (Dayton Lummis) are three scientists aboard a commercial flight. They are heading to an important meeting at which they will unveil their plans for a massive new bomb, one that can easily wipe out all people on earth. The plane inexplicably climbs and climbs, eventually beyond its ceiling, and the three find themselves in a shadowy world of the future. There, they are put on trail by a judge (the imperious Gregory Morton) and a jury, who represent the future people who will be killed by the new bomb. The judge decrees that they shall remain in the future world and can never return. The prisoners make an improbable escape and find the plane, which makes a safe landing--several days late.
The three leads are pretty ordinary (Lummis appears irritated most of the time) and the plot is very familiar. The film suffers from a small budget, although the future world is fairly well done. Gregory Morton is so severe that he probably would have scared me when I was a kid. John Bryant plays pilot Hank Norton and probably gives the best performance of the film as he is confounded by the plane's continued climb.
You could do much better than "The Flight that Disappeared", but it's acceptable fantasy fare.
Pretty Good Morality Play
cloud_nine21 January 2017
Warning: Spoilers
TV regularly questioned the ethics of building bigger and more deadly weapons during the 50s and 60s. The Twlight Zone seemed to tackle this subject best. This movie could have benefited greatly from a rewrite from Rod Serling.
Though released in 1961, the film has more of a mid-50s feel to it. The acting is B level but adequate. The message has a "preacher" feel to it but makes it's point. At first the movie looked like the entire story was a dream of one passenger but events following the plane landing proved that it actually happened.
Growing up in the 50s and 60s, we all lived with possibility of nuclear destruction. The US and USSR were in a contest to build and test larger and larger bombs. The year after the release of this film, the Cuban Missle Crisis brought us unbelievably close to nuclear war. Some forward writers tried to warn us of the dangers. The Flight That Disappeared isn't the best of this genre but it's far from the worst.
Though released in 1961, the film has more of a mid-50s feel to it. The acting is B level but adequate. The message has a "preacher" feel to it but makes it's point. At first the movie looked like the entire story was a dream of one passenger but events following the plane landing proved that it actually happened.
Growing up in the 50s and 60s, we all lived with possibility of nuclear destruction. The US and USSR were in a contest to build and test larger and larger bombs. The year after the release of this film, the Cuban Missle Crisis brought us unbelievably close to nuclear war. Some forward writers tried to warn us of the dangers. The Flight That Disappeared isn't the best of this genre but it's far from the worst.
If Daffy Duck wrote for the Twilight Zone
racliff5 September 2022
Watching this last night, I'm actually thinking about this absurd movie still. And that makes me wonder, why? 1961 is in the middle of the cold war, couple years into the broadcasting of Twilight Zone (but before Outer Limits), four years after Sputnik orbits the planet, and five years following a terrific movie "Forbidden Plant". I'm thinking my rating of 5 is gracious and I'm interested how other reviews are much more satisified.
The science is so poor, from the poster showing a jetliner while the aircraft is a Douglas DC-6, or the plot having the craft operating more than twice it's operational ceiling, or noticing the footage is from different aircraft shots. The story builds at reasonable pace but becomes almost painful to struggle through. The 72-min movie may have been the 2nd movie for the theatre or drive-in, which is fine should you find yourself trapped to witness an event, like being at your cousin's baseball game. But what stops you from turning it off while watching at home? It felt like watching a slow moving Zamboni crash into the sideboards -- you know you should just walk away but find yourself compelled to see the collision.
The acting is stable and engaging with the only cast member that I recognized, was Meg Wyllie from a Star Trek appearance (and most people won't even notice that connection). Two-thirds of the way through this low-budget production, a feeling of Twilight Zone finally came on me and watching became less arduous. This social commentary may well have been worthy of thoughts for their future. And maybe that is still relevant today -- just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean that SHOULD do it.
The science is so poor, from the poster showing a jetliner while the aircraft is a Douglas DC-6, or the plot having the craft operating more than twice it's operational ceiling, or noticing the footage is from different aircraft shots. The story builds at reasonable pace but becomes almost painful to struggle through. The 72-min movie may have been the 2nd movie for the theatre or drive-in, which is fine should you find yourself trapped to witness an event, like being at your cousin's baseball game. But what stops you from turning it off while watching at home? It felt like watching a slow moving Zamboni crash into the sideboards -- you know you should just walk away but find yourself compelled to see the collision.
The acting is stable and engaging with the only cast member that I recognized, was Meg Wyllie from a Star Trek appearance (and most people won't even notice that connection). Two-thirds of the way through this low-budget production, a feeling of Twilight Zone finally came on me and watching became less arduous. This social commentary may well have been worthy of thoughts for their future. And maybe that is still relevant today -- just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean that SHOULD do it.
don't let the low rating keep you from this gem!
kalibeans31 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
As I write this review the rating stands at 4.6, which is way too low for this film. The acting is adequate, the story line well flushed out. Very interesting premise for a movie. What seems to be routine flight to D.C. ends up in a place where time is suspended. Plenty of time is spent introducing the characters and setting up the storyline. 3 scientists, each in their own way a part of the team to produce a "super bomb" are aboard. The plane climbs incredibly and without reason. When everyone is apparently in a state of suspended animation, these 3 are made to stand trial by future human beings whose existence may not happen if the bomb is created. It all sounds fantastical, and it is - but the film is very well put together. A bit too heavy on the moral judgements perhaps, but you must remember the time in which this film was made. Every American feared a nuclear attack from Russia. It really is a gem of a little movie and well worth the time invested to watch. I'm glad I ignored the rating and went with my instinct that this could be a good film and watched it - I was right.
Watchable
tloco18 January 2017
Love the old stewardess's ( aka "flight attendant"). Plus cigarette smoking was allowed! A near classic B movie with an eerie soundtrack. Not sure what a Beta bomb is but I'm sure the the Russian's had it first.
As the plane climbs higher and higher ( no engines working but still climbing) ground control has no answers. Even worse, cigarettes won't light due to lack of oxygen. The pilots and passengers are in suspended animation unless your a scientist. Time suspended where the the future and the past meet. Talk about a log jam! Will the beta bomb be created and used? Watch the movie and learn about early 1960' paranoia.
As the plane climbs higher and higher ( no engines working but still climbing) ground control has no answers. Even worse, cigarettes won't light due to lack of oxygen. The pilots and passengers are in suspended animation unless your a scientist. Time suspended where the the future and the past meet. Talk about a log jam! Will the beta bomb be created and used? Watch the movie and learn about early 1960' paranoia.
Interesting Film Loses Its Way
richievee3 May 2019
Much of "Flight That Disappeared" comes across as a typical episode of "The Twilight Zone" -- that is, rather intriguing with the promise of a twist ending. But then it descends into preachy, can't-we-all-just-get-along drivel that has been done much better countless times before. The airliner's interior set is quite convincing, and it is interesting to see what air travel was like in the olden days, prior to jetliners and TSA. Unfortunately, the script and acting are both barely passable, and the film reeks of low budget woes and a quickie turnaround to meet the deadline for release.
Case in point is an embarrassingly egregious flub that eluded the producer's or director's eye. Around the 30:48 point, carefully watch the dark-haired female extra (passenger) in the foreground. Supposedly asleep with the others, instead she tries to stifle a smile, opens her eyes, and patiently waits for the camera to dolly past her to the scene's main action. My advice: watch the first half of "Flight That Disappeared" for a promising sci-fi premise, but then abandon it before your profound disappointment spoils the entire experience.
Fluffy little morality play (minor spoiler alert)
toycarguy8 July 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie for two reasons: 1) I was practically raised on low-budget sci-fi & horror, having spent many a Saturday mid-morning watching this stuff on a local independent station's "creature feature" matinee, and 2) nowadays to see whether it would be enjoyable on "Mystery Science Theater 3000."
Yes, "Flight ..." would've done very well on MST3k (it is indeed yet another bittersweet addition to my ever-growing list of Episodes That Might Have Been(tm)). Its low budget, bland directing and forced, stilted dialogue, all combining to take the edge off its high-minded intent, serve to guarantee that. There are riff opportunities aplenty, including a comment by one of the primary characters regarding the pilots' capabilities which has to be one of the most unintentionally ready-made straight lines in film history. And although his initial appearance lasted literally only three seconds, with no dialogue, I took a small measure of pride in calling out the character who would undeniably prove to be the film's Annoying Guy.
The goal of this film, of course, is to comment on the Cold War (and thus get the audience to think more about it), and so now the Minor Spoiler Alert is in effect: The three primaries are revealed to be closely involved in the development of a new super-weapon. Although their judgement is done in a very "Twilight Zone"-esque manner, the film nonetheless poses a question with significant moral and ethical aspects: To what degree are the makers of a device guilty should someone use their device destructively? Their super-weapon is intended more to be defensive, precisely in that it is so destructive it should frighten aggressors through fear of retaliation -- but what if it is used as a first strike, to eliminate an enemy nation before it can strike?
While the film presents a legitimate concern regarding escalation, even during a so-called "cold" war, it makes the mistake almost always made regarding such a concern, slipping too easily to the socio-political left in presuming that those who commissioned such a weapon are unrepentant war-mongers who absolutely WILL use it aggressively (neglecting the simple fact that in most wars, only one side was the aggressor, while the other was merely reacting in self-defense or in defense of an ally). One of the minor characters is even clearly meant to reflect this presumption, brandishing an over-the-top "Hit them before they can hit us!" attitude.
However, the film's poor production quality overall is of course the bigger weakness. It's almost painful to watch the film's younger male lead, who actually turns out to be a Decent Joe Caught In The Machinations Of The Cold War(!), ham-fist his way through horrid introductory dialogue with the female lead regarding "young women who don't wear wedding rings", which has him coming off as some zealous masher. As the film winds down, it devolves almost instantly from an essentially respectable parable about Cold War escalation to what looks like an ad-hoc panel discussion about ESP. Nearly at the end, the film steps down even further, turning itself into an opportunity for hushed snickering by the primaries as certain minor characters learn of the incident almost as an aside, in an unintentionally(?) funny "Hey! Didja hear what happened?!"manner.
If you're looking for a well-made (or even a moderately well-made) treatment of the Cold War, this movie is NOT it; it clearly, almost desparately, wants to be, but it simply fumbles too much. If, however, you want low-calorie fare that still satisfies, I recommend this film with a 6.5 out of 10; it's done in the best tradition of "B" sci-fi & horror, tackling a serious subject in the midst of laughably weak production, but it's slow-paced and repetitive. And if you're a MSTie, I think you'll agree this film deserves a 9 out of 10 for its sheer riffability.
Yes, "Flight ..." would've done very well on MST3k (it is indeed yet another bittersweet addition to my ever-growing list of Episodes That Might Have Been(tm)). Its low budget, bland directing and forced, stilted dialogue, all combining to take the edge off its high-minded intent, serve to guarantee that. There are riff opportunities aplenty, including a comment by one of the primary characters regarding the pilots' capabilities which has to be one of the most unintentionally ready-made straight lines in film history. And although his initial appearance lasted literally only three seconds, with no dialogue, I took a small measure of pride in calling out the character who would undeniably prove to be the film's Annoying Guy.
The goal of this film, of course, is to comment on the Cold War (and thus get the audience to think more about it), and so now the Minor Spoiler Alert is in effect: The three primaries are revealed to be closely involved in the development of a new super-weapon. Although their judgement is done in a very "Twilight Zone"-esque manner, the film nonetheless poses a question with significant moral and ethical aspects: To what degree are the makers of a device guilty should someone use their device destructively? Their super-weapon is intended more to be defensive, precisely in that it is so destructive it should frighten aggressors through fear of retaliation -- but what if it is used as a first strike, to eliminate an enemy nation before it can strike?
While the film presents a legitimate concern regarding escalation, even during a so-called "cold" war, it makes the mistake almost always made regarding such a concern, slipping too easily to the socio-political left in presuming that those who commissioned such a weapon are unrepentant war-mongers who absolutely WILL use it aggressively (neglecting the simple fact that in most wars, only one side was the aggressor, while the other was merely reacting in self-defense or in defense of an ally). One of the minor characters is even clearly meant to reflect this presumption, brandishing an over-the-top "Hit them before they can hit us!" attitude.
However, the film's poor production quality overall is of course the bigger weakness. It's almost painful to watch the film's younger male lead, who actually turns out to be a Decent Joe Caught In The Machinations Of The Cold War(!), ham-fist his way through horrid introductory dialogue with the female lead regarding "young women who don't wear wedding rings", which has him coming off as some zealous masher. As the film winds down, it devolves almost instantly from an essentially respectable parable about Cold War escalation to what looks like an ad-hoc panel discussion about ESP. Nearly at the end, the film steps down even further, turning itself into an opportunity for hushed snickering by the primaries as certain minor characters learn of the incident almost as an aside, in an unintentionally(?) funny "Hey! Didja hear what happened?!"manner.
If you're looking for a well-made (or even a moderately well-made) treatment of the Cold War, this movie is NOT it; it clearly, almost desparately, wants to be, but it simply fumbles too much. If, however, you want low-calorie fare that still satisfies, I recommend this film with a 6.5 out of 10; it's done in the best tradition of "B" sci-fi & horror, tackling a serious subject in the midst of laughably weak production, but it's slow-paced and repetitive. And if you're a MSTie, I think you'll agree this film deserves a 9 out of 10 for its sheer riffability.
Morality Play, No Give Me A Sadistic Play Instead.
nightwing6024 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is more of Twilight Zone or Outer Limits Episode than a Full Length. But Overall its a Good/Decent Movie for a movie on a Low Budget 60's Movie. What gets me is other reviews who the movie is Extreme when it comes to Morals. Really? I would hope if a weapon that is easily assessable that could destroy the whole world. That maybe, Just Maybe Morals and Ethics would be talked about. Otherwise the nihilist should just resurrect Hitler and get It over with. Sci-Fi has always been used to talk about situation humanity might find themselves in and how they should handle those situations. That is why Twilight Zone, Outer Limits and Star Trek are great shows and why The Day the Earth Stood Still and Jurassic Park are great movie. Was this kind of plot used all the time in the 50 and 60. Yeah but it was also because we just drop to Nuclear Bombs in Japan. And if anyone Notice. But that was damn horrible. Maybe the reason they used these kind of plot. Was Because they were honestly worried about the future. Anyways don't listen to the Naysayers. For a Low Budget Movie is one of the better movies with the "Will Humanity Survive" of plots
The Infinitely Mile High Club.
rmax30482313 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The tale has promise. All airplane-in-jeopardy movies do. There are some things man was never meant to do, and one of them is flying at 40,000 feet.
This one follows a pattern familiar to anyone who has seen another film of its type, especially "The High and the Mighty", or who has seen the "Twilight Zone" episode called "The Odyssey of Flight 33," which aired in February, 1961. This movie was released in September, 1961, just enough time to grind out a message-laden, low-budget simulacrum without having to dream it up ab initio.
That's not to say this is a total failure because the genre itself has so much appeal. Yet, the haste shows in the sets, the dialog, and the acting itself. The nerve center for traffic control is a small room with one instrument in it, apparently an oscilloscope. (It's an embarrassment.) Every single person we get to meet during the introductions that these movies require looks and speaks like a Hollywood actor. That includes the two stewardesses but I forgive them because one of them, Bernadette Hale, is such a meal.
It takes almost twenty minutes before the airplane begins to get into trouble, gaining altitude no matter what the crew does. (They do nothing; that's a quick and unknowing script, for you.) Here's a quote from the dialog. The airplane now has four dead engines and is still climbing through 50,000 feet. Remarks the worried Air Traffic Control Director, "I don't know. This whole business has a strange, abnormal ring." Meanwhile you sit through a pretty young mathematician, a nuclear scientist who looks like a clone of Allen J. Hyneck, and a maniac who wants Dr. Hyneck to invent a new bomb and blow the Russians off the face of the earth before they can do it to us. If you have ever had any doubt about the details of the semantics behind the word "overacting," you must see Harvey Stephens' performance as the deranged paranoid, breathless, his eyes bulging out like goggles, not so much speaking his lines as launching them.
Then everybody falls asleep, the airplane sits silently on a cloud, and the three scientific types undergo a "Christmas Future" experience. Then it was all a dream, unless it wasn't. It's very preachy and unrealistic in its climactic moments.
On the whole, it would have made an acceptable "Twilight Zone" hour. As a full-length movie, it's clumsy and pretty cheap.
This one follows a pattern familiar to anyone who has seen another film of its type, especially "The High and the Mighty", or who has seen the "Twilight Zone" episode called "The Odyssey of Flight 33," which aired in February, 1961. This movie was released in September, 1961, just enough time to grind out a message-laden, low-budget simulacrum without having to dream it up ab initio.
That's not to say this is a total failure because the genre itself has so much appeal. Yet, the haste shows in the sets, the dialog, and the acting itself. The nerve center for traffic control is a small room with one instrument in it, apparently an oscilloscope. (It's an embarrassment.) Every single person we get to meet during the introductions that these movies require looks and speaks like a Hollywood actor. That includes the two stewardesses but I forgive them because one of them, Bernadette Hale, is such a meal.
It takes almost twenty minutes before the airplane begins to get into trouble, gaining altitude no matter what the crew does. (They do nothing; that's a quick and unknowing script, for you.) Here's a quote from the dialog. The airplane now has four dead engines and is still climbing through 50,000 feet. Remarks the worried Air Traffic Control Director, "I don't know. This whole business has a strange, abnormal ring." Meanwhile you sit through a pretty young mathematician, a nuclear scientist who looks like a clone of Allen J. Hyneck, and a maniac who wants Dr. Hyneck to invent a new bomb and blow the Russians off the face of the earth before they can do it to us. If you have ever had any doubt about the details of the semantics behind the word "overacting," you must see Harvey Stephens' performance as the deranged paranoid, breathless, his eyes bulging out like goggles, not so much speaking his lines as launching them.
Then everybody falls asleep, the airplane sits silently on a cloud, and the three scientific types undergo a "Christmas Future" experience. Then it was all a dream, unless it wasn't. It's very preachy and unrealistic in its climactic moments.
On the whole, it would have made an acceptable "Twilight Zone" hour. As a full-length movie, it's clumsy and pretty cheap.
Painful watch---Trite Morality 101 nuclear winter imbecility...AVOID
rome1-595-39025120 August 2014
This stupidity of trite left wing morality and the cold war is a dog. As others have stated it gets kind of interesting about an hour into it when you get caught up in where the plane is going....until we find out and get the usual Hollywood morality lesson 101.
The acting is terrible and wooden but that is due to the director---the rocket scientist and the physicist are halfway watchable. The pilot and copilot and flight engineer in the room sized cockpit are remarkable mainly for their toupees (hair pieces) which get ruffled in odd directions from time to time apparently unnoticed by director camera man and everyone else making this thing.
The story's moronic use of time and existence could be swallowed but not the lead heavy ABC morality lesson --- AVOID is all I can tell you.
I only stayed with it as it is a chore to find something else on Netflix streaming and didn't have the energy to do it.... After we learn where the plane is it is really painful to watch this out.. Trust me unplug it early and save an hour of your life for something better.
DO NOT RECOMMEND AVOID....
The acting is terrible and wooden but that is due to the director---the rocket scientist and the physicist are halfway watchable. The pilot and copilot and flight engineer in the room sized cockpit are remarkable mainly for their toupees (hair pieces) which get ruffled in odd directions from time to time apparently unnoticed by director camera man and everyone else making this thing.
The story's moronic use of time and existence could be swallowed but not the lead heavy ABC morality lesson --- AVOID is all I can tell you.
I only stayed with it as it is a chore to find something else on Netflix streaming and didn't have the energy to do it.... After we learn where the plane is it is really painful to watch this out.. Trust me unplug it early and save an hour of your life for something better.
DO NOT RECOMMEND AVOID....
Klaatu barada nikto
ulicknormanowen17 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
"Flight that disappear ", with a small budget -it shows in the scenes with the men of the future - could teach a lesson or two to the disaster movies of the seventies ,with their cardboard characters and their special effects.
It actually belongs to the tradition of the fear of the Bomb ,already expressed in "the day the earth stood still" (1951),in which the E.T. warned the human race the way the "jury" does here or in "on the beach" (1959) ,the last pictures of which look like those men-who-might-never show to the threesome as far as the future of their planet is concerned .The tradition would continue in "Dr Strangelove...." (1963) and "planet of the apes" (1967). The cold war is hinted at when the passenger urges the doctor to build his bomb and wipe "them" out.
The screenplay is solid and makes up for the lack of means ;there's really a sense of mystery and interest is sustained throughout.
It actually belongs to the tradition of the fear of the Bomb ,already expressed in "the day the earth stood still" (1951),in which the E.T. warned the human race the way the "jury" does here or in "on the beach" (1959) ,the last pictures of which look like those men-who-might-never show to the threesome as far as the future of their planet is concerned .The tradition would continue in "Dr Strangelove...." (1963) and "planet of the apes" (1967). The cold war is hinted at when the passenger urges the doctor to build his bomb and wipe "them" out.
The screenplay is solid and makes up for the lack of means ;there's really a sense of mystery and interest is sustained throughout.
What a clanger!
mrgmcarter28 September 2022
Firstly, I'm just not into sci-fi.
But if you are going to attempt it, keep the 'real' stuff as real as possible. There is more cheese here than at my local deli.
The aisle width and headroom on the aircraft are ludicrous. Yes, I understand it is about camera access blah blah. But think how much more involving the film would have been if restricted to the intimate confines of a real cabin. The lounge area would have done any Zeppelin proud.
The acting is wooden and by the numbers Suzuki.
The close-up of the ashtray surely inspired Lloyd Bridges' scene in Flying High: "Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit smoking."
Why was there a step down from the aircraft onto the cloud?
To be fair, the film raises a valid moral point. As Robert Oppenheimer said on witnessing the first atomic detonation: Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
They should have pushed the crazy guy out of the aircraft much sooner. Could I have that ham with cheese?
But if you are going to attempt it, keep the 'real' stuff as real as possible. There is more cheese here than at my local deli.
The aisle width and headroom on the aircraft are ludicrous. Yes, I understand it is about camera access blah blah. But think how much more involving the film would have been if restricted to the intimate confines of a real cabin. The lounge area would have done any Zeppelin proud.
The acting is wooden and by the numbers Suzuki.
The close-up of the ashtray surely inspired Lloyd Bridges' scene in Flying High: "Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit smoking."
Why was there a step down from the aircraft onto the cloud?
To be fair, the film raises a valid moral point. As Robert Oppenheimer said on witnessing the first atomic detonation: Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
They should have pushed the crazy guy out of the aircraft much sooner. Could I have that ham with cheese?
An Extended Outer Limits Episode Format About The End of the World?
tabuno18 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
9 November 2010. There eerie music, the special effects, the plot all make for a retro-trip down the sci fi history with smatterings of the original Outer Limits and Twilight Zone. This simple, somewhat stiff movie has decent elements and a sincere elements that echo THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL with a time-space twist along with a dose of the original STAR TREK. Watchable, but outdated. The possibility of being trapped forever in a living stasis where time has stopped or where a few humans would stand in judgment of present earth would be the core of several STAR TREK episodes. A number of strains of the sound track would later be used in the OUTER LIMIT that would come out a couple of years later.
5/13/2023. This 60s science fiction about a commercial four-prop plane disappearing into thin air has the advantage of being more of a period piece that encounters a science fiction situation so that most of the time, the film doesn't age. This movie has some similarities with the plot outline of The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) released a decade earlier and the more contemporary Jodie Foster's Contact (1997). Nevertheless, the dialogue is by today's standards loaded with cliches, including sexual stereotypes, and the special effects awful especially compared to the sci fi classic The Forbidden Planet (1956). However, there seems to be a sincere effort to produce a serious sci fi movie that incorporates attempts at substantive narrative about the role of women and the dangers of the atomic bomb. The Flight That Disappeared is not the typical pulp sci fi waste and instead sets the bar for the most part as a precursor to the much better anti-war movie Fail Safe (1964) or Stephen King's The Langolier's (1995).
5/13/2023. This 60s science fiction about a commercial four-prop plane disappearing into thin air has the advantage of being more of a period piece that encounters a science fiction situation so that most of the time, the film doesn't age. This movie has some similarities with the plot outline of The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) released a decade earlier and the more contemporary Jodie Foster's Contact (1997). Nevertheless, the dialogue is by today's standards loaded with cliches, including sexual stereotypes, and the special effects awful especially compared to the sci fi classic The Forbidden Planet (1956). However, there seems to be a sincere effort to produce a serious sci fi movie that incorporates attempts at substantive narrative about the role of women and the dangers of the atomic bomb. The Flight That Disappeared is not the typical pulp sci fi waste and instead sets the bar for the most part as a precursor to the much better anti-war movie Fail Safe (1964) or Stephen King's The Langolier's (1995).
This is a straight version of 'Airplane' 1978
ptomley4711 December 2021
It is like watching a straight version of 'Airplane", the dream sequences, the flight control, unruly passenger, everyone smoking butts,
I just couldn't stop seeing the similarities and how easily the
Zumecker brothers were able to satire the terrible acting and dialogue.
They worried about the bomb and dying from nuclear annihilation we worry about climate change nothing changes and how we're all going to die unless the government stops it The new generation I think it will be worrying about pandemics and viruses and the government must stop it.
They worried about the bomb and dying from nuclear annihilation we worry about climate change nothing changes and how we're all going to die unless the government stops it The new generation I think it will be worrying about pandemics and viruses and the government must stop it.
Randy Newman - Political Science
Bernie444414 August 2011
It is 1960. One of the last prop-driven plane flights containing two scientists and a cutie mathematician seems to be off schedule, for that matter off altitude and possibly out of time. What mysteries can this foretell and are we on for a heavy-handed warning? Can't say much about this film as it is a short subjects similar to the twilight zone programs. However a side added plus is being able to see the old prop-driven planes and 60s clothing. If you expect to see scanty closed space girls that I'm afraid you'll be disappointed.
Much of the time is given to introducing characters as you would normally have in a mystery such as "Ten Little Indians." During one of the conversations a passenger that seems to be a little unhinged expresses an attitude that parallels Randy Newman's song "political science." You may want to listen to a copy and see if he is not correct.
This film is worth watching and wondering if the heavy-handed warning still applies today.
Much of the time is given to introducing characters as you would normally have in a mystery such as "Ten Little Indians." During one of the conversations a passenger that seems to be a little unhinged expresses an attitude that parallels Randy Newman's song "political science." You may want to listen to a copy and see if he is not correct.
This film is worth watching and wondering if the heavy-handed warning still applies today.
Much more interesting than expected
rklein12310 January 2024
It's a theme we've seen many times before. Scientific advances can carry significant and disastrous consequences when used for bad purposes - such as weapons of war and mass destruction.
What responsibility do the inventors and purveyors of such technology owe to the future? And who will be making the decisions on how the technologies will be put to use?
The film manages to establish a good sense of mystery and other-worldly goings on. Considering that most of the film takes place inside an airplane, this is an accomplishment.
Craig Hill might be the biggest star in this feature, but I'd never heard of him. Surprising, considering his Robert Conrad-like good looks. But all the acting is good.
There's a lot of exposition going on here, establishing the characters, and the interesting coincidence of having three accomplished professionals in the fields of science, engineering and mathematics on the same flight, heading to a meeting in Pentagon Washington DC.
The message is a little heavily-handed in its other-worldly delivery, but I think this was characteristic of the time. It was made in 1961, when nuclear weapons were considered an imminent threat to humanity. (They still are, but we seem to have gotten more used to them.) But, I think the overall look and feel of the movie seems like it could have been made in the 1940s.
Overall, it's not too thrilling or insightful, but it IS interesting.
What responsibility do the inventors and purveyors of such technology owe to the future? And who will be making the decisions on how the technologies will be put to use?
The film manages to establish a good sense of mystery and other-worldly goings on. Considering that most of the film takes place inside an airplane, this is an accomplishment.
Craig Hill might be the biggest star in this feature, but I'd never heard of him. Surprising, considering his Robert Conrad-like good looks. But all the acting is good.
There's a lot of exposition going on here, establishing the characters, and the interesting coincidence of having three accomplished professionals in the fields of science, engineering and mathematics on the same flight, heading to a meeting in Pentagon Washington DC.
The message is a little heavily-handed in its other-worldly delivery, but I think this was characteristic of the time. It was made in 1961, when nuclear weapons were considered an imminent threat to humanity. (They still are, but we seem to have gotten more used to them.) But, I think the overall look and feel of the movie seems like it could have been made in the 1940s.
Overall, it's not too thrilling or insightful, but it IS interesting.
The entertainment disappears about halfway through this thing
scsu197521 November 2022
At least the film is somewhat intriguing to start off.
A plane carrying a nuclear scientist, rocket designer, female mathematician, the woman who had those pulsating veins in her head in the "Star Trek" pilot, and normal people, inexplicably starts gaining altitude. Air Traffic Control has no idea what the hell is going on, which is probably the most realistic event in the film. Eventually the plane arrives at a foggy purgatory containing a few rocks. There, a guy with no personality puts the trio on trial for just thinking about creating an awesome weapon. It seems the scientist is the father of the beta-thermonuclear bomb. What is not revealed is that he is also the father of the beta-max, which was an even worse bomb. The three are convicted of something, but then they are let off the hook.
The cast does nothing to distinguish themselves. Dayton Lummis, as the scientist, looks like he is either bored or suffering from constipation. Paula Raymond, as the mathematician, doesn't get to do any mathematics. However, Craig Hill, as the rocket designer, does give his part a good try. Veteran character actor Addison Richards has a bit as "The Sage." Now if the film only had characters named "Parsley," "Rosemary," and "Thyme," this could have been interesting.
A plane carrying a nuclear scientist, rocket designer, female mathematician, the woman who had those pulsating veins in her head in the "Star Trek" pilot, and normal people, inexplicably starts gaining altitude. Air Traffic Control has no idea what the hell is going on, which is probably the most realistic event in the film. Eventually the plane arrives at a foggy purgatory containing a few rocks. There, a guy with no personality puts the trio on trial for just thinking about creating an awesome weapon. It seems the scientist is the father of the beta-thermonuclear bomb. What is not revealed is that he is also the father of the beta-max, which was an even worse bomb. The three are convicted of something, but then they are let off the hook.
The cast does nothing to distinguish themselves. Dayton Lummis, as the scientist, looks like he is either bored or suffering from constipation. Paula Raymond, as the mathematician, doesn't get to do any mathematics. However, Craig Hill, as the rocket designer, does give his part a good try. Veteran character actor Addison Richards has a bit as "The Sage." Now if the film only had characters named "Parsley," "Rosemary," and "Thyme," this could have been interesting.
Oddball Passenger Plane Movie
StuOz18 May 2022
A passenger plane runs into strange problems.
Sort of feels like an extended episode of The Twilight Zone (1959) or The Outer Limits (1963). And keep in mind this appeared long before the first Airport (1970) movie so back then in 1961 this probably seemed like a landmark flick!
Cast member Gregory Morton (The Examiner) would go on to voice two alien beings in TV's Lost in Space (see episodes Follow The Leader & The Prisoners Of Space).
I enjoyed the movie a lot but not everything about it totally clicks. But well worth a watch.
Sort of feels like an extended episode of The Twilight Zone (1959) or The Outer Limits (1963). And keep in mind this appeared long before the first Airport (1970) movie so back then in 1961 this probably seemed like a landmark flick!
Cast member Gregory Morton (The Examiner) would go on to voice two alien beings in TV's Lost in Space (see episodes Follow The Leader & The Prisoners Of Space).
I enjoyed the movie a lot but not everything about it totally clicks. But well worth a watch.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
