The Flying Saucer

Dismissed by the late Bill Warren of consisting largely of "a rather dull travelogue of Alaska" but breaking new ground on the discussion of UFOs this film confused the debate on flying saucers under the misconception that there was actually only one flying saucer despite the first sighting in 1947 of several such craft gliding like saucers skimming across water.

Conforming to the then prevailing notion that flying saucers originated behind the Iron Curtain the baddie's hideout is presided over by a Teutonic Mr Danvers, capable of instilling with menace lines like "You forgot your thermos, Mr Trent!", although the profession of his partners in crime to "the cause" marks them out as followers of Uncle Joe.

For the most part it justifies Warren's criticism. Bt when it finally makes two fleeting appearances the saucer moves a lot faster than Ed Wood's hubcaps ever did.

I've seen this film a few times, I must confess, and I like it. My favorite part is Mike Trent's bender in the bars of the Juneau waterfront. For my money, it is the centerpiece of the film and also where Denver Pyle appears. I love McCarthy era portrayals of Soviet operatives. Hantz is a first class strange character with voyeuristic and other kinky tendencies. The official-type Americanos are very fifties. People often expect all films to be realistic and can't seem to appreciate the interesting little views we can get into the past from off beat, low budget stuff like "The Flying Saucer".

Folks, there are no words; hyperbole fails us. This movie is so incredibly bad, so stultifyingly boring, that it has to be seen to be believed. Granted, it was made in 1950, and, granted, there obviously wasn't much of a budget, but really. . .! Yes, we will allow that it was, after all, one of the first films to deal with the subject of UFOs (and CIA cover-ups, and Russian hoaxes, and a Canadian connection) but, after a mildly promising start, the film plays largely as if it were funded by the Alaska Board of Tourism - ENDLESS tableaux of glaciers, and wildlife, and rivers, and more glaciers, but precious little action, and even less in the way of FX. The saucer, when FINALLY seen, looks like something out of "Killers From Space." The fact that this cowflop of a film was made in 1950 doesn't really save it, either: both "The Thing" and "The Man from Planet X" were made right around the same time, and are far better efforts. In the case of "The Man from Planet X", that one was made for around $50,000.00 and was shot in six days on borrowed sets, and it was still better! In short, "The Flying Saucer" isn't just crummier than you think, it's crummier than you CAN think! If you really want to see early UFO films, see the above mentioned pair; don't - repeat, DON'T - waste your time with "The Flying Saucer".

This movie is far better than some of the reviews indicate. One reviewer rightly said that good films like The Thing or The Man from Planet X were made at the same time, but the comparison is faulty. The Flying Saucer was a one-off by Mikel Conrad who starred in it, wrote the storyline, directed and produced; it seems to be his only writer-director-producer credit. TMFPX was extremely low budget but used far superior actors. And Thing was a Howard Hawks production with a top-notch cast and crew; many of the scenes, judging by dialogue and action alone, seemed to have been directed by Hawks even though he is not credited. Compare The Flying Saucer to the many other sci-fi flicks of the early fifties and it holds up a little better. Except for interiors, the entire film was shot on location in Alaska – so you get a great look at the 1949 Alaska environment around Juneau, Spring Lake, and Taku Glacier. And a number of boats, docks, cabins, and float planes from that era. I found the storyline interesting – a scientist builds a saucer (From alien plans? This question is left to the viewer's imagination) that both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. want to get a hold of. The saucer was a good MacGuffin. Acting was stiff at times, but this was a pro- sumer production. Still, it was worth watching.

It's not a poorly made film. Oh, there are a few "why bother"'s in it, such as the lady looking directly into the camera and screaming in the opening minute. Is it boring? Yes. BUT, kudos to this independent production for actually shooting a lot of the film on location in Juneau and at the Taku Glacier...and, there is a LOT of it! 2/3 of the film is more like travelogue footage. Makes the movie drag, however, since we visited Juneau in 2021, it was WONDERFUL to see the city as it appeared in 1949! Recognized many landmarks, including the 1930s hotel where we stayed. Saw buildings intact that were only ruins, 70+ years later, but still recognizable.

Having been there, scenes such as the leading actress taking the 10-second dip in the glacial lake waters are far more vivid to me than the black-and-white film.

So, if you've been there, or want to see a non-color variation on a Fitzpatrick TravelTalk...