Gog

"The Return of Gog" - sounds good doesn't it? Shot in 3-D, but unseen in that format for 50 years, GOG hit the big screen at the Hollywood Egyptian last weekend as part of a 3-D film festival. After its premiere in Hollywood, UA decided NOT to release GOG nationally in 3-D, setting the stage for a film which has been more read about than seen properly for decades. For, once its theatrical (non 3-D) release was completed, the film apparently was sold to TV in B&W prints which further robbed the film of its production lustre. Only in the last few years did a color print show up courtesy of Turner Television. And, now, a 3-D dual print (complete with intermission to change reels!) has been unearthed.

Sounds exciting?

Unfortunately, all this buildup is for a small, talky B-picture. It IS refreshing to look back at a time when SF films weren't just glorified Chase/Action films (ie: T3), but GOG is mostly banal. Still, there's a lot of gadgetry, political intrigue and genuine science (!) packed into its brief running time. The unseen enemy behind it all is clearly the old Soviet Union, setting the film apart from so many films which depict the science itself as evil or suspect.

Director Herbert Strock was there along with Joe Dante and Leonard Maltin. Dante interviewed Strock, who was still spry and proud of his film. Ironically, Strock (like Andre De Toth) has monocular vision and couldn't guage the 3-D effects himself. Indeed, Strock's decision to keep garish 3-D effects to a minimum also may have contributed to the studio's decision to forego a costly 3-D release. And even Strock was amused at a line in the film where someone is hospitalized by an overdose, "It was only a little radiation!"

Something, or someone, is killing people at a super-secret, deep-underground, atomic-powered military research base that is overseen by 'Nuclear Operative Variable Automatic Computer' (NOVAC), a powerful electronic brain, and its hench-robots Gog and Magog (names of complex Biblical/Talmudic origins). This is the third of Ivan Tor's 'hard-science' OSI (Office of Scientific Investigation) series (preceded by 'The Magnetic Monster' (1953) and 'Riders to the Stars' (1954)). Typical of Tor's SF films, 'Gog' is very talky, as OSI agent David Sheppard (Richard Egan) is toured around the base and all the various gadgets carefully explained, but despite the po-faced attempts at technical credibility, most of the 'science' on display, as well as the story's resolution, makes little sense. The cast, like the script, is earnest and boring, and other then the cranky Dr. Zeitman (John Wengraff), none of the characters are very interesting. The film starts well, with the deaths-by-ultrafreezing of a scientist and (surprisingly) his pretty assistant, but bogs down as the investigation progresses. A number of scenes go on too long, notably the unconvincing simulated reduced-gravity demonstration and the endless stock-footage of jet fighters pursuing a mysterious high-altitude rocket plane. Most of the special effects are simplistic and unconvincing but the robots are refreshingly machine-like, rather than the clanking metal humanoids common in the genre at the time (although why, since they are designed to service the atomic reactor, they are equipped with flame-throwers, is a head-scratcher). The film is very much a product of its times, with a 'We need to get there first' attitude to space exploration - the epilogue is ludicrous. Tors deserves credit for trying to make 'real science fiction' movies, rather than just more giant bug or alien invasion flics, but unfortunately, 'real' usually isn't very interesting and does not stand the test of time as well as the less credible, but far more entertaining, monster movies. Why the film is named for one of the robots, who are relatively bit players, is puzzling.

In my opinion this is one of the best films made by Ivan Tors. Tors created "Science Fiction Theater" for TV and made several SciFi films (like The Magnetic Monster) before this genre was really popular. He brought real science to the screen in plots that may seem dated today but afterall, it was 1954. In GOG, Tors brings in then brand new inventions such as jets, computers, robots, high frequency sound, cryogenics, sunlight as a weapon, electronic surveillance, atomic power and even man-made satellites (which would not become reality for 3 more years). To an audience unfamiliar with such things, it was exiting and scary. Especially scary when you were made to think such super weapons were under the control of a foreign power. The Korean War had just ended and the USSR was making aggressive comments about atomic war with us. This movie gave me nightmares for quite awhile.

-BullMoose

I was perhaps seven or eight years old when I saw "Gog" in the 1950s. The story was only somewhat comprehensible to me; although I understood that the laboratory was some type of research facility, it was unclear to me why things were going haywire. The jet flying overhead was a mystery: where did it come from, who was in it, and what was it doing?

The scientific devices were fun to watch, especially the "ray" weapon. Being unable to grasp the concept of sabotage, I didn't appreciate why the device was not operating as designed. But what had the biggest effect on me was the action of the robots. Their running amok in the lab scared me to death. Maybe I picked up on the terror of the lab's occupants.

The combination of confusion and fear made watching the movie (on TV) unpleasant but fascinating. It would be fun to see "Gog" now, knowing what I do about the plot, the actors, and the Cold War era in which it was made.

Yes, I saw this as a kid during the Saturday Matinee era. Have seen it a few times on TV, and recorded a copy. I also enjoyed the early "Doctor Who" broadcasts. I wonder if the Doctor Who set designers were influenced by Gog and Magog when they conceived the Daleks? Think about it: Both robots were mobile via treads/rollers (no artificial legs); both robots have a similar body shape; both have a single, grasping arm, and both have a flamethrower-type arm. Coincidence?