Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews55
quarterwavevertical's rating
I first saw this on PBS more than 30 years ago and I was left wondering what that was all about. Mind you, I was a part-time graduate student at the time and I was finishing some course work, so I wasn't focused on the movie.
I remember watching it on a cable channel several years later and I was equally as bewildered. This time, I took notice of some of the characters and I could neither relate to them nor did I care. In addition, I couldn't make head or tail of the plot, particularly those parts that didn't bore me.
I made one more attempt to watch this a few years ago when it was shown on Turner Classic Movies and quickly switched it off. What I saw of it quickly confirmed that this film was complete rubbish.
I remember watching it on a cable channel several years later and I was equally as bewildered. This time, I took notice of some of the characters and I could neither relate to them nor did I care. In addition, I couldn't make head or tail of the plot, particularly those parts that didn't bore me.
I made one more attempt to watch this a few years ago when it was shown on Turner Classic Movies and quickly switched it off. What I saw of it quickly confirmed that this film was complete rubbish.
I first saw "Satellite in the Sky" more than 50 years ago while I was in high school. I don't recall being particularly impressed with it at the time, largely because the real space program was often featured in the news and what was shown in the film didn't correspond with reality.
A few years ago, I watched it again as it was included in a DVD collection of several science fiction movies. Since then, I've seen it on the channel Turner Classic Movies and my opinion hasn't changed.
The film was made in the mid-1950s, a time during which a genuine fear of nuclear war existed and the first spacecraft of any kind had yet to be launched into orbit. "Satellite in the Sky" (a misleading title as there is no actual satellite involved) depicts a fictional first spaceflight, though the real reason for it is revealed part-way through the film.
It might have been impressive when it was in theatres, but it hasn't aged well. Many of the special effects are unrealistic, particularly now that we've seen how people live and work in space. For example, the smoke coming out of the spacecraft's engine nozzles reminds me of what one could see in a Flash Gordon serial, though there isn't any electric buzzing sound and no Buster Crabbe. As well, how is it that there seems to be 1-g gravity on board?
That's enormously disappointing as only a few years earlier, the vastly superior "Destination Moon" was released and it gave an accurate depiction of what spaceflight would be like, including weightlessness and space adaptation syndrome (often referred to as space sickness). Perhaps much of that could be attributed to the fact that DM was based on a Robert Heinlein story and that Heinlein himself had worked on the film.
One problem with SITS is that it doesn't seem to know if it's supposed to be SF or make a political statement about technology and its military applications and it doesn't do either aspect particularly well.
The characters aren't particularly impressive, either. There's a fighter-jock commander (played by Kieron Moore), an intrepid reporter looking for a scoop (Lois Maxwell), a pompous know-it-all scientist (Donald Wolfit, who, at times, chews scenery in his performance), a cocky playboy radio operator (Bryan Forbes), and so on. Seen one movie with characters like that, you've seen 'em all.
But there may be reasons for watching this that have nothing directly to do with the film itself. For example, there are two or three connections to the future James Bond movies. The first one, of course, was seeing Lois Maxwell in a role before she played Miss Moneypenny. The second one can be seen soon after the opening credits. It's a Vulcan bomber and one of them is the main plot device in "Thunderball". The third one is somewhat obscure. A few years after this movie, Kieron Moore was in "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" and it featured Sean Connery in a pre-Bond role.
But there are also some connections between SITS and the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey". Wally Weevers was the special effects director for this one and he worked on the second film as well. Actor Alan Gifford plays an American military officer and he played Frank Poole's father in "2001". I'm also inclined to believe that Stanley Kubrick saw SITS and the spacecraft shown before we see the space clipper heading for the space station in "2001" might have been inspired by it.
"Satellite in the Sky" isn't bad enough to be considered a "golden turkey" but it certainly isn't a classic like, say, the aforementioned "Destination Moon" or "Forbidden Planet", which was made that same year.
A few years ago, I watched it again as it was included in a DVD collection of several science fiction movies. Since then, I've seen it on the channel Turner Classic Movies and my opinion hasn't changed.
The film was made in the mid-1950s, a time during which a genuine fear of nuclear war existed and the first spacecraft of any kind had yet to be launched into orbit. "Satellite in the Sky" (a misleading title as there is no actual satellite involved) depicts a fictional first spaceflight, though the real reason for it is revealed part-way through the film.
It might have been impressive when it was in theatres, but it hasn't aged well. Many of the special effects are unrealistic, particularly now that we've seen how people live and work in space. For example, the smoke coming out of the spacecraft's engine nozzles reminds me of what one could see in a Flash Gordon serial, though there isn't any electric buzzing sound and no Buster Crabbe. As well, how is it that there seems to be 1-g gravity on board?
That's enormously disappointing as only a few years earlier, the vastly superior "Destination Moon" was released and it gave an accurate depiction of what spaceflight would be like, including weightlessness and space adaptation syndrome (often referred to as space sickness). Perhaps much of that could be attributed to the fact that DM was based on a Robert Heinlein story and that Heinlein himself had worked on the film.
One problem with SITS is that it doesn't seem to know if it's supposed to be SF or make a political statement about technology and its military applications and it doesn't do either aspect particularly well.
The characters aren't particularly impressive, either. There's a fighter-jock commander (played by Kieron Moore), an intrepid reporter looking for a scoop (Lois Maxwell), a pompous know-it-all scientist (Donald Wolfit, who, at times, chews scenery in his performance), a cocky playboy radio operator (Bryan Forbes), and so on. Seen one movie with characters like that, you've seen 'em all.
But there may be reasons for watching this that have nothing directly to do with the film itself. For example, there are two or three connections to the future James Bond movies. The first one, of course, was seeing Lois Maxwell in a role before she played Miss Moneypenny. The second one can be seen soon after the opening credits. It's a Vulcan bomber and one of them is the main plot device in "Thunderball". The third one is somewhat obscure. A few years after this movie, Kieron Moore was in "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" and it featured Sean Connery in a pre-Bond role.
But there are also some connections between SITS and the movie "2001: A Space Odyssey". Wally Weevers was the special effects director for this one and he worked on the second film as well. Actor Alan Gifford plays an American military officer and he played Frank Poole's father in "2001". I'm also inclined to believe that Stanley Kubrick saw SITS and the spacecraft shown before we see the space clipper heading for the space station in "2001" might have been inspired by it.
"Satellite in the Sky" isn't bad enough to be considered a "golden turkey" but it certainly isn't a classic like, say, the aforementioned "Destination Moon" or "Forbidden Planet", which was made that same year.
I first saw this movie when it was shown on commercial TV in the early 1990s. I wasn't particularly impressed by it at the time. As I often do with certain films that don't immediately strike my fancy, I gave it another chance when I watched it on a certain cable channel about 20 years later. Same impression.
I have it one more chance when Turner Classic Movies showed it last night and my opinion didn't change.
The story focuses on three young women, two sisters and a life-long friend, who are about to take their first steps into adulthood. All of them work as waitresses in the local pizza restaurant, the name of which giving the movie its title.
One of them (played by Lili Taylor) is a bride whose wedding is cancelled or, at least, postponed when she faints during the ceremony. The younger sister (Annabeth Gish) has academic aspirations, having won a scholarship to Yale to study astronomy. The other sister (Julia Roberts) seems to be aimless and doesn't appear to have decided what she wants to do.
Now that those details were established, the rest of MP becomes easy to guess. "Coming of age" was a common theme in movies, so one can easily figure out what'll happen to those characters.
The bride and the man she was slated to marry (Vincent D'Onofrio, who was a bit hard to recognize after losing weight and growing hair since his well-known role as Pvt. Leonard Lawrence--nicknamed Private Pyle--in his earlier film "Full Metal Jacket") spend the rest of the movie sorting out their future marital plans, including some "previews", if you know what I mean.
The younger sister takes a part-time babysitting job looking after the young daughter of a man whose wife is, presumably, out of the country. There are hints that their marriage might be in trouble. I leave it for the reader to figure out what that leads to.
The older sister is chatted up by a Porsche-driving poor little rich kid who doesn't really know what do with himself, either. That eventually leads to conflicts involving different social classes. (Rich boy dating a girl from the wrong side of the tracks...... not exactly a new idea, is it?)
All three of the threads come to their inevitable conclusions and that's where the movie ends. (Yawn!)
On the whole, MP is completely forgettable. It's only in hindsight that it may be interesting when one considers who was in it and what each of those actors did afterward. I already mentioned Vincent D'Onofrio. Most notably, I think, is that this is an early movie for Julia Roberts. Previously, she had a guest spot in an episode of "Miami Vice" and her career was about to take off. The following year, she was in "Steel Magnolias" and, soon after that, "Pretty Woman", which might be considered her breakout film.
The owner of Mystic Pizza was played by Conchata Farrell. She and Ms. Roberts would work together again in the movie "Erin Brockovich". Also, watch for a very young Matt Damon in the dinner scene.
"Mystic Pizza" strikes me as the type of movie one would see as part of a Saturday night outing with friends. Aside from that, it's largely forgettable.
I have it one more chance when Turner Classic Movies showed it last night and my opinion didn't change.
The story focuses on three young women, two sisters and a life-long friend, who are about to take their first steps into adulthood. All of them work as waitresses in the local pizza restaurant, the name of which giving the movie its title.
One of them (played by Lili Taylor) is a bride whose wedding is cancelled or, at least, postponed when she faints during the ceremony. The younger sister (Annabeth Gish) has academic aspirations, having won a scholarship to Yale to study astronomy. The other sister (Julia Roberts) seems to be aimless and doesn't appear to have decided what she wants to do.
Now that those details were established, the rest of MP becomes easy to guess. "Coming of age" was a common theme in movies, so one can easily figure out what'll happen to those characters.
The bride and the man she was slated to marry (Vincent D'Onofrio, who was a bit hard to recognize after losing weight and growing hair since his well-known role as Pvt. Leonard Lawrence--nicknamed Private Pyle--in his earlier film "Full Metal Jacket") spend the rest of the movie sorting out their future marital plans, including some "previews", if you know what I mean.
The younger sister takes a part-time babysitting job looking after the young daughter of a man whose wife is, presumably, out of the country. There are hints that their marriage might be in trouble. I leave it for the reader to figure out what that leads to.
The older sister is chatted up by a Porsche-driving poor little rich kid who doesn't really know what do with himself, either. That eventually leads to conflicts involving different social classes. (Rich boy dating a girl from the wrong side of the tracks...... not exactly a new idea, is it?)
All three of the threads come to their inevitable conclusions and that's where the movie ends. (Yawn!)
On the whole, MP is completely forgettable. It's only in hindsight that it may be interesting when one considers who was in it and what each of those actors did afterward. I already mentioned Vincent D'Onofrio. Most notably, I think, is that this is an early movie for Julia Roberts. Previously, she had a guest spot in an episode of "Miami Vice" and her career was about to take off. The following year, she was in "Steel Magnolias" and, soon after that, "Pretty Woman", which might be considered her breakout film.
The owner of Mystic Pizza was played by Conchata Farrell. She and Ms. Roberts would work together again in the movie "Erin Brockovich". Also, watch for a very young Matt Damon in the dinner scene.
"Mystic Pizza" strikes me as the type of movie one would see as part of a Saturday night outing with friends. Aside from that, it's largely forgettable.