Master of the World (1961)

This is How Movies Should Be Made

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

From AIP schlockmeister Samuel Z. Arkoff comes a tale of Victorian madman, Vincent Price, with a huge airship taking captives, including a miscast Charles Bronson, on his mission of death and destruction. It's not exactly a high minded Jules Verne adaptation, but it is scripted by the great Richard Matheson. I'll blame the film's mediocrity on journeyman TV and film director William Witney.

A Movie that is a Constant Reminder of its Limitations. While Simultaneously Looking Charming and Cheap it Plods along with a Strong Character in Robur (Vincent Price) and an even Stronger Premise (Anti-War). Jules Verne was Somewhat of a Rage in Hollywood at the Time, but most of the Movies are Fairly Forgettable Today. They are Somewhat Anachronistic Costume Cinema going for a Youth Audience mostly, but were, for the Majority, rather Flat and only Mildly Interesting Considering the Fantastic Subject Matter.This one is Colorful and Occasionally Entertaining but Never Compelling. It is Forever Hampered by its only Mid-Range Budget and Flat Storytelling. Some Scenes are Worth a Look for some Retro-Retention. Using a lot of Back Projection and Stock Footage the Movie is Lackluster but not without its Energetic Half-Hearted Attempt at some Thrills.If Screened Back to Back with Harryhausen's Mysterious Island (made the same year), this one Stands Still and it Pales in Comparison. Not without some Viewing Interest it Remains as it was in 1961. Disappointing.

Master of The World is not a classic film, but for those of a certain age who also used perhaps to be Jules Verne fans it is remains an interesting film. It has nothing else to recommend it other than a young Charles Bronson and a typical piece of Vincent Price over acting. Others have written better reviews suffice to say this is not a film for the anorak brigade who wish to dissect every nuance or argue the historical factuality. It is simple entertainment giving one the opportunity to see a couple of your favourite actors from times past. This Jules Vernes story deserves better than this and a new version with a leading director and financial support could turn a poor film version into a modern classic?

Enjoyable low-budget romp based off of the Jules Verne novels Robur the Conqueror and Master of the World, but, oddly, using only the second one's title. Vincent Price stars as self-proclaimed "master of the world" Robur, inventor of a giant flying zeppelin named the Albatross, who abducts Charles Bronson's stoic police inspector and Henry Hull's blustery balloonist and his daughter, played by the fetching and strong-willed Mary Webster. Also along for the ride is Webster's idiotic, cowardly fiancé played by David Frankham who does nothing but whine and be a jerk.The screenplay by Richard Matheson is on the talky side with little in the way of action, but it's intelligently written and has some extremely quotable scenes. Prince really sinks his teeth into the part of the determined and passionate Robur, providing a less manic and composed alternative to James Mason's intense Captain Nemo in Disney's earlier 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.Although Matheson insisted Charles Bronson was "miscast" as John Strock, he does his best in a pretty basic hero role that just calls for him to be square-jawed, stoic and punch henchmen. The stoic and square-jawed Bronson is perfect for punching henchmen, so I'm unsure what Matheson is talking about. His cool, quiet demeanor acts as a nice counterbalance to Price's more animated, over the top (but still enjoyable) performance.Mary Webster's Dorothy is little more than someone for Bronson and Frankham to fight over and for Hull to act protective toward, but nevertheless, she does have an arc, albeit a pretty standard one, wherein she finds the guts to stand up to wimpy heel Frankham's Phillip and choose the manlier Strock. This just leaves Henry Hull. Many viewers complain that he overacts in his role as Dorothy's father, but, frankly, that's what makes his role so enjoyable. He's hilarious and provides much better comic relief than Vito Scotti's horrific performance as the Albatross' resident "French" chef. His dinner table debate with Price as Robur is one of the film's best scenes.Add a few steampunk sci-fi elements like a cool giant airship and "futuristic" flintlock pistols (basically just embellished with some added on silver parts) and you've got yourself a pretty solid, but not great, movie. The only thing that sinks it is its low budget which necessitates the over reliance on stock footage. Beyond this, I found it just as enjoyable as the earlier Verne epics Disney's 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and Fox's Journey to the Center of the Earth.