Five

i first saw five on the late show when i was in highschool in the mid-60's and i never forgot it, images from it stayed with me--i saw it again in the late 70's or so and then, the last time, in the early 90's on tnt (and taped it and loaned it to someone and never saw it again)--the last time i watched it i was astonished at how visually perfect it is, in many ways too perfectly staged--often the light is coming directly from the horizon like a maxfield parrish painting and i've often wondered if the actors and crew had day jobs and the whole thing was done early in the morning or late in the evening--leonard maltin likes it and comments negatively on its "purple prose", which is true, but i'm a noir fan and it's fun--i can't believe this isn't available on tape or dvd--obler's frank lloyd wright house is a treat too.

My first and only viewing of this film was over 25 years ago on New York's old Million Dollar Movie channel 9. Its theme of how the human race almost put an end to itself was presented in a very simple, bleak and thought provoking manner by its director Arch Obelor. I often remember that movie as my first and most impressionable "end of mankind" movies. It was made on a shoestring budget, with unknown actors and yet I consider it the most powerful film of that genre. I have not seen it on television since and cannot find it on video. I still can envision that night as a young teen, after having viewed that movie, thinking of our world, our future and what humankind is capable of. Wherever a print of that film is, I wish our present generation could view it as food for thought. Thank-you for allowing me to express my opinions on a forgotten "little" film.

A bit overwrought and florid, but very enjoyable. Several reviewers pick on it because they seem to think that the characters are walking around in a totally depressed state throughout the movie. I don't see this at all. In fact, I perceive them as incredibly upbeat and positive about their situation, all things considered. One of the aspects of this film that I enjoy the most is the pure villainy of the bad guy. It's rare nowadays to see such an uncompromising and ungrateful jerk written into a script. He's human and believable, but he has no redeeming qualities at all. Also, he accomplishes this without the aid of technology, secret weapons, or even any sort of clever scheming or evil plans.

The cinematography is pretty good, with some startling shots and quite a bit of hand-held camera.

Finally, and I simply can't pass on this, the title is numerically correct for the majority of the movie. A couple other reviewers have stated that it is incorrect and I'm not sure if they're numerically challenged or what.

I have been searching for a copy of this film on video for ten years. Like others who have commented, it has haunted me since seeing it as a l7 year old when it was originally released. In recent years I learned that the set was Oboler's own home designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. I would be quite interested to see it as newly built compared to some recent color photos of the structure available in various FLW collections.

In authoritative books about science fiction in the movies, Five is generally dismissed as crude and simplistic. There is justification for this, but somehow I found the picture interesting anyway. The fact that it was shot on a shoestring may even have helped. Being forced to use only five actors and a single ready-made set--his own Frank Llloyd Wright house in the California hills--director Arch Oboler created an intimate self-contained world.

This narrow focus increases the intensity of the drama, which, as an end-of-the-world story, has its own inherent interest.

The plot doesn't bear much looking into. The way these five people--out of the entire world population--came to be together amounts to wild coincidence. There is a certain amount of sermonizing of the why-can't-we-all-get-along variety. And so on--it's hardly a great movie.

But it's interesting nonetheless and worth looking into.