Spaceflight IC-1: An Adventure in Space (1965) User Reviews

Excellent story idea ruined by chimp writers

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 16 February 2009]

The actual basic story idea of SPACEFLIGHT IC:1 is pretty interesting. However, considering how boring and badly the film was made, I assume that they must have hired chimps to write the script--it was that bad and that boring. It's a shame, really, as the film addresses some interesting ideas about spaceflight--but they are dealt with in a completely ham-fisted and inept manner.

The basic story idea is excellent. A group of space travelers are sent from Earth to a habitable planet that will take 25 years to reach. So, in the meantime, some of the crew members are in suspended animation, one has been turned into a robot (?) and the rest need to get along and accept that it's going to be a very, very long ride! Seeing them with children and planning on creating more during the long voyage is an interesting concept as is the notion that tempers might flare given there are only a few couples aboard. What if a couple wants to split up? What if the captain is a bit too authoritarian and regimented? What if some of the crew members are total morons? All these questions are more or less answered, but don't expect any of it to make sense.

The biggest problem is that the film finds them one year into their journey and already they are facing a mutiny. Didn't they bother to check out these people to see if the captain was a fascist or if the crew were all stupid malcontents?! And, didn't anyone question why the space agency turned one of the people into a robot with a human head stuck inside a goldfish bowl? The morality and pointlessness of this plot point is something to consider! And, given that several more people are being held in suspended animation, didn't anyone think to make sure the process worked before attempting a space flight with passengers in suspension? And, naturally, the process actually turns the people into killing zombies (don't you just hate when that happens?). Of course, the biggest unanswered question is why didn't anyone consider that the actors were all wooden and the script made little sense beyond the initial story idea! Poorly made and dull despite an intriguing premise--this is just too dull to recommend--even to lovers of early spaceflight movies.

No Excuse For Poor Production Values

[bpolhemus · 3/10 · 17 October 2009]

Consider this is the same year that Star Trek began on NBC-TV. We may laugh at the funny SFX on TOS, but compared to this film (and several others made about the same time), it was downright modern.

Also, consider four years later, Kubrick would make 2001: A Space Odyssey, which to this stay still looks fairly fresh. Check out the 1960s-era reel-to-reel tape recorder the "Educator" uses to record her lessons for the children. At least the Star Trek folks tried to simulate a technology 200 years in the future.

The story-line is about par for the "sturm-und-drang" type of space opera of this time, but it is rather unrealistic to expect us to believe that this crew would be so misfit and unable to get along with one another. Considering the amount of rigorous psychological testing the early Mercury astronauts underwent just to orbit the earth, it's rather bizarre.

"There never are words for the important things"

[hwg1957-102-265704 · 5/10 · 1 November 2022]

One can see how most reviewers would have a low opinion of this low budget British science fiction film set in 2015 (!) but it's not that terrible. There is a germ of a good film but it descends unfortunately into soap opera vibes rather than the stresses and strains of actual space flight. In the cast I thought John Cairney as Dr. Steven Thomas gave the best performance, reluctant to be a leader but eventually having to pick up the mantle. He was quite believable. The music score by Elisabeth Lutyens was also good.

There are interesting ideas like deep freezing some of the crew, the rather totalitarian government back on earth and the ESP powers of the three children but these are never developed. It does end on an optimistic note though, which was nice.

Cheap, boring (talky) British sci-fi

[sabata · 2/10 · 4 June 2000]

A spaceship on the way to populate the new world "Earth 2" endures a mutiny when the tyrannical leader tells a woman with a critical disease that she can't have a second child. People argue a lot. There is a "closed circuit man" (a head in a glass case) and people whose bodies have been frozen (to later be revived upon arrival). Not much to entertain or surprise here and almost what I would call a "non-ending". The most recognizable cast member to me was child actor Mark Lester.

Barely watchable

[JohnHowardReid · 2/10 · 16 November 2012]

Here's a soap opera in space, obviously made on the cheap, using a few cramped sets and some of the poorest special effects ever seen. There are no space dangers to speak of. Instead, a few whiskery shots of a model rocket bursting through a cardboard backdrop, are used to divide various sequences of fake emotional drama. Only in the brief episode involving a berserk, re-animated man does the movie offer any action to make this soap opera more palatable.

With the exception of an earnest portrayal of megalomania by Bill Williams, the acting is as colorless as the cast. The pre-credits sequence is even mouthed by an actor reading his lines from an obvious idiot board.

The "direction" (if you can call it that) by Bernard Knowles is as routine as can be, using a plethora of dull, uninspired, TV-style close-ups. Even the photography by Geoffrey Faithful (of all people!) is flat and featureless.

In the annals of science fiction . . . well, never mind. Spaceflight IC-1 doesn't belong there

[bullseyejack-880-914376 · 1/10 · 15 January 2017]

This movie about a crew of couples and children being sent to another planet in hopes of colonization is barely watchable. There is some science fiction that is so bad that it's funny. This is NOT one of those movies. Spaceflight IC-1 doesn't even qualify as watchable "schlock." The spaceship's (and I use the word 'spacechip' loosely) interior looks like a small, converted, second-rate office building. The characters' uniform insignia denotes their job aboard ship, but there's little mystery there, because of the little sewn tags on their uniforms, such as Captain, Doctor, Teacher, Engineer, etc. Thank you, Captain Obvious. The dialog was stilted, amateurish and generally badly delivered. The only redeeming feature was the dialog delivered at the funerals of two crew members - and that was from the Bible.

The Worst SF Ever?

[dodgercodger · 1/10 · 19 October 2013]

I saw the title and brief description and thought this might be good. I could not have been more in error. Virtually nothing but talking heads, trying to be oh-so British while the non-existent plot labours forward. The alleged motivation for forming a new human colony on a distant planet fails to take into account that with a start-up population of four couples (along with three young boys and four unfortunates in suspended animation) there will be very little genetic variation in coming generations. There is a mutiny when the Captain (and we know this because he has his job title emblazoned on his chest, along with everyone else on the crew) forbids the other couples from "adding to their population". The aforementioned boys seem to be acting more like kids at a sleep-away camp than interplanetary explorers (even though they do have some kind of ESP powers). Their acting skills rank someplace south of a dead mouse. In the end, the Captain gets it by a berserk re-animate and our poor fish-bowl-headed cyborg just stands and rolls his eyes. 93 minutes that would have been better spent getting a tooth extracted.

SF By People Who Hate SF

[danielkr-1 · 1/10 · 8 May 2012]

I've seen this kind of thing before - science fiction movies made by people who seem to really be kicking and screaming against the genre. It's like they are saying, "those fans like heads in jars? Fine, let's give them heads in jars." If anything the premise seems to be a weird excuse to hang a soap opera on. The space ship is implausibly large inside, the black and white cinematography is bland. The actors, surprisingly, seem fine in roles which are pretty aimlessly written. BUT, there are two things I can get behind in this movie. It does have the virtue of brevity, clocking in at just over an hour. And it's always nice to see an American villain for a change.

Not very good soap opera in space

[agore3 · 2/10 · 22 October 2013]

The premise of the story is good but the execution is just awful - sets, acting, script. It comes across like a TV soap opera and quite low tech given the time when it was made. I could see this as a series given they were only 1 year into the mission. Except for the people in hibernation event that leads to the death of Mead, the remaining plot points could used in a western.

Interesting, the guy with head in the glass had such a minor role. He was not allowed to talk to Earth -- why? In most sci fi movies these characters are the go to experts or the evil one but the majority of the action was not in the operation room.

It was devoid of the usual meteor shower or other external threat found in many movies and focused on the personal conflicts.

Cheap, hammy soap opera/sci-fi hybrid doesn't work on either level

[frankfob · 2/10 · 9 July 2013]

Low-rent at every conceivable level, this overheated British space opera has a turgid script, laughable "special effects", ham acting--except by lead Bill Williams, a reliable American character actor who usually plays a good guy but here does a good turn as the ship's tyrannical captain--flat and dull photography and isn't worth spending your time on. The story of a crew being sent on a 25-year journey to a habitable planet because Earth is on its last legs had possibilities, but hack director Bernard Knowles shoots everything in the most boring, unimaginative ways possible, without anything even remotely resembling thought, flair, or any kind of style whatsoever. Even low-budget veterans like Edward L. Cahn or Sam Newfield would have given some pizazz to this suffocatingly dull, plodding cheapo. Don't bother with it.

Great Character Drama

[cool_splash1 · 10/10 · 7 January 2009]

This is a great movie. Yes it can be slow and at times talky, but I think that's the point. It was more of a character type drama than a space adventure. I loved the point of the movie. The initial plan was to get the most healthy so called most perfect people to have the most healthy so called most perfect children etc. The people in the movie came to the conclusion that it really isn't possible. Perfection isn't all it's cracked up to be especially when you would let someone die, because they've become sick when you could have easily helped them. Also the movie was about power and how even well meaning people can abuse it and become dictators.

mid 60's Twentieth Century Fox

[RanchoTuVu · 7/10 · 16 April 2009]

As earth has become more uninhabitable a desperation journey to a new planet that is going to take years to complete goes awry when the ship's captain becomes completely unreasonable. The crew is made up of husbands, wives, and children, picked out by earth super powers to start a new colony. As well, the ship also carries some other passengers who've been frozen, to be thawed out and revived when they get to their far off destination. The story goes in several interesting directions, with a mutiny led by the ship's doctor, the captain who's wife hasn't gotten pregnant (which provokes classic insecurity symptoms), not a good development for a captain of a space ship carrying humanity's last chance at avoiding extinction, the kids on board, the shifting allegiances between the crew, etc... However interesting the film is thematically, it suffers from a lack of resources, looks incredibly cheap, and has an unknown cast that utters a lot of bad lines.

Mutiny on the Spaceship

[Michael_Elliott · 29 January 2013]

Spaceflight IC-1 (1965)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

Sometimes if you don't have the correct budget for your screenplay then it's best to just put the project on hold until you can raise more money. This British science-fiction has a pretty good story but sadly very little to nothing is done with it. Earth is pretty much on its dying legs when a group of people are sent in a spaceship to find another planet. The only catch is that it's going to take twenty-five years to get there and within the first year the crew grow tired of the rather mean captain so a mutiny takes place. Okay, this story might have worked had it been written better but there's also the problem with the sets. These sets aren't quite on the same level as PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE but not for a single second do you really feel like you're in outer space and the lack of anything technical on this ship tells you that this journey wasn't going to last very long. Also, you have to wonder why these people were picked to go find this new planet and especially since they're all rather boring. The screenplay has a good idea but sadly the writers do very little with it. The majority of the time the people are just sitting around being asked whose side they're on, if they'd take part in a mutiny and whether or not the ship should be turned around. None of this is all that entertaining and it doesn't help that the performances are on the weak side. SPACEFLIGHT IC-1 could certainly be remade and I think the basic story is interesting enough to where a talented director and writer could do something more with it. Pay attention to the first funeral sequence where the words spoken are the lyrics from The Byrds' "Turn, Turn, Turn." How this happened and what the story to this is something I'd like to hear more about.

Well, so long, humanity!

[resisobilus · 1/10 · 17 August 2013]

The moral of this story is: Never send people into space without knowing a thing about what you're doing!

Behold-- eight white, English-speaking, privileged, conformist, heterosexual (maybe), neurotics are the last hope of humans. Oh, and one smart guy made incapable of breeding by letting himself be, uh, domed (I kept waiting for someone to push the dome and make his head roll a la the Pop-O-Matic).

The story seems to say people can't manage the long trip. The stilted narration before the end credits says we can. I say do like Douglas Adams and send the pointless people off so Earth can thrive. These jokers were a fair start, but make the next ships huge!

An absolute bore to easily ignore.

[mark.waltz · 2/10 · 17 May 2022]

This British science fiction film only runs a little over an hour, but it was so tedious that it seems like it ran for as long as space itself. If it is the final frontier, I'm digging a hole in the ground and hiding from what is going on here because it is the most tedious soap opera with very little science fiction until the group of married couples who are heading into space decide to go up against the captain and mutiny.

One of the wives commit suicide because she's not allowed to have a baby (or can't, I may have fallen asleep at that point), and when the captain discovers who has turned the staff against him, he plots a cruel and unusual punishment involving a head that talks stuck in a glass ball turned upside down. Basically nothing really happens until the very end, and when it does, the viewer feels cheated. In fact, there isn't even a view of the spaceship that they are on until halfway through the movie. The acting is maudlin and the script is as deadly dull as it would be to look out at an eternity of stars days on end. What got this one to be film even if it was part of a double bill is beyond me. Even the most boring of soap operas in the mid-1960's would be certainly better than this. They may be turning in another world outside of earth, but their Guiding Light has been shut off.

Interesting, timely little movie

[kleary1 · 6/10 · 27 April 2017]

I stumbled upon this movie and unfortunately missed the beginning, however it was quite easy to catch up on the basic plot. What first intrigued me was that the info button showed this as one star, yet the little bit of dialogue I had heard seemed pretty intelligent (a grouchy meal time exchange is happening when a lovely character who looks uncannily like Natasha Richardson comes in and cheerfully says "good morning" and another character replies, "how does she know it's morning, or even good"...also another actress looks very much like Felicity Jones). I have no faith in the ratings done by these cable services--I once saw Citizen Kane rated 2 stars (it's since been updated to 4) and Deadpool, 4 stars, and the 3 Godfathers described as "...three outlaws on the lamb..." Yikes. ...so I dove in. I notice many of the scathing reviews here are from at least 4 or more years ago, pre-Trump. One of the things I noticed immediately about this movie is how perfectly timely it is. We have had the hottest recent years on record, the EPA is being stripped, auto emission regulations reversed, he's bringing coal back (yeah, right), and climate scientists are saying that without CO2 emission reductions, we're on track to be at 900 parts per million for CO2 by 2100 (in context, pre-industrial revolution, about 200 years ago, CO2 was 280 ppm). We are on track to recreate the early Eocene Epoch. A baby born today will be 83 in 2100 and by the time his or her grandchild is 83, it's possible life on earth will pretty much resemble the dystopian vision portrayed in so many science fiction works. And thus we land in the world of Spacecraft IC-1, where a group of people are carefully chosen to go to an Earth-2 colony and populate it with a healthy, as perfect as possible genetic line. Meanwhile, back on messy old earth, the population is oppressed by what sounds like a nefarious dictator class and a strict code known as RULE, "the Reformed United League Executive council". This apparently was supposed to take place in 2015 (something I probably missed at the beginning)--fast forward to 2017, and instead of trying to fix this beautiful, perfect planet full of trees, rivers, mountains, waterfalls, butterflies, and rainbows (thanks Bill Maher), we have pledged NASA 20 billion dollars to send men to Mars. Billionaire hobbyists are busy spending their spare change on elaborate bomb shelters in New Zealand and manned Mars missions, because what do you do with all that money--certainly not help your fellow man on Earth. One of the main criticisms of this movie is how cheap it looks--in other words, it doesn't have a glossy, futuristic look. Please remember that this was made in 1965, 4 years before man landed on the moon. Under the circumstances, I think the film's vision is just fine. In fact, I admire that they put the characters in ordinary clothing and didn't try to cook up some crazy futuristic look. It kind of reminded me of the simple look of a Twilight Zone episode. Keep in mind, if you re-watch the original Star Trek, it looks pretty cheap and cheesy too by modern standards. The other part of the movie's plot that I thought was pretty well done was that of mutiny. Really, mutiny is timeless and what happens aboard Spacecraft IC-1 isn't so very different than what happened on the Bounty. Overall, of course the special effects are very outdated by today's standards, but if you overlook this, the story is complex and intriguing, the acting is decent, and the dialogue is quite well-written. Give it a chance.