Five

This is one of those cases where the flaws of the film in question are undeniable, and yet...there's something about this earnest little effort that gets to me. Perhaps there is something about the 50's look and feel and sound that I find winning; the actors do their best by the overripe but affecting script; and there is also the fact that, however primitively, the movie does attack prejudice and bigotry as the disgusting things they are. The strong background score by Henry Russell is really quite beautiful in spots, terrifying in others -- the slow orchestral buildup in the scene where Roseanne finds her husband gives me the shivers whenever I hear it. Personally, I don't find the film boring; once you ease into its rhythm it plays quite well. And the ending...well, yes, you can see it coming a mile away; but keep a handkerchief ready just in case.

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 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.

I 'd never heard of this movie, so I was surprised at how good it was, shoestring budget or not. The acting isn't that bad, although James Anderson (Eric) has one of the strangest accents I've ever heard (It's somewhere between London, Bombay and Berlin). One fascinating 6th surivivor in the movie is the house itself that most of the scenes take place in. It is a cliff house designed by the great American Architect , Frank Lloyd Wright. Somehow the house and scenery add an extra sense of elegance to the movie that would have been lost if it was set in another setting. The characters are frequently filmed against the spectacular views from the house's large glass windows, emphasizing their loneliness in a world now so large and unpopulated. The pacing is glacial and seems to dwell on the (frequently depressed) moods of the characters, bringing to mind Bergman films like Persona (although Arch Oboler is no Igmar Bergman). The most likeable character is Charles, played by Charles Lampkin, who would go on to appear in films as varied as 'The Man', 'Islands in the Stream' and 'Coccoon' as well as a semi-regular character 'Ralph' on Mayberry RFD. He has a sweetness and naturalness that makes his paraphrasing of the beginning of Genesis one of the high points of the movie. It's a pity that he wasn't born later, or we would have seen more of him than the string of uncredited appearances in movies throughout the 60s and 70s.