Space Probe Taurus (1965) User Reviews

It's worth a watch, if it's late at night and you remain objectionable.

[scottebear · 5/10 · 28 February 2002]

I've read so many bad reviews about this film that I just had to watch it when the chance arrived. It's got all the indications of being a bad film (Five aliases not withstanding: Space Probe Taurus, Space Monster, First Woman into Space, Flight Beyond the Sun and Voyage into the Sun).

Keep an open mind. Remember that American International Productions and Leonard Katzman made most of these on a shooting schedule of three weeks or less with production costs of under $50,000. (In 1965 it cost Irwin Allen $150K to produce two episodes of 'The Time Tunnel' using BackYard sets in So. Calf).

If you keep the above in mind and watch the actors carefully, it's not a bad film. Sure, by today's standard there's more melodrama than Si-Fi and yes, I didn't like the Model Rocket Ship in the Lobster Aquarium either.

Now just sit back, relax, quite looking for things to call hokie and like I said, 'Listen to the actors, try to put your self into their shoes for 80 minutes'.

The main cast were all good 'B' picture stars with the exception of the film's 'Hero' James B. Brown, (this is the same actor who brought us 'Persuit Pilot Tex' from the movie 'Airforce', also co-stared in 'Wake Island' in additions to many other fine performances) and Ms Francine York (YUM - take a look at the '02 photo of her from the DGA Tribute for George Sidney and you'll see what I mean..)

There are a few scenes that actually have some pucker factor or at the very least, will have you shouting 'Come on! Hurry Up! Get out of there before something jumps out of the shadows and GRABS you!'

All things considered, I liked it and if you do too, then count yourself fortunate. Movies are much more enjoyable if you can appreciate the efforts of all the participants. Not just the blockbusters who spent all the money and won all the awards.

Scotty Jensen

Hits All the Low-Budget Space Movie Clichés

[mrb1980 · 3/10 · 4 October 2008]

While not a complete dud, "Space Monster" (or whatever it's called) is about as cliché-ridden as a movie can get. It has everything:

Steel-jawed, serious commander; mission slacker-guy who sacrifices himself; one woman on board, and she's pretty and a scientist; old pro astronaut who gives sage advice; just awful aliens; military and scientific guys waiting anxiously back on earth; and ultra low-budget special effects.

The plot is the usual "Let's go to another planet and look for life" plot, with an encounter with a strange spaceship and a recycled (from 1964's "Wizard of Mars") alien. The alien, who communicates by sticking out his tongue, is destroyed, and the intrepid band eventually lands in what appears to be a giant aquarium. The crew fights off some sort of gill-monster, and a giant crab, then heads for home.

The film is given some life by Francine York (who fills out a space suit pretty well), and by some good dialogue and direction. The rest of the cast is pretty good. The special effects and monsters are so laughable that they're almost entertaining. Try to watch this late at night when you're not feeling very demanding.

The Mest Bovie Ever Made

[info-16951 · 4/10 · 8 July 2012]

By any standard, the greatest movie every made.

It's a WWII submarine movie, complete with sonar pinging.

Plus Sea Hunt, with underwater grappling with a monster.

The background music is in both major and minor keys.

The sets are comparable with those of Star Trek.

The dialog is minimal and nary a word is mispronounced.

The computers beep and boop obligingly.

There's a countdown scene, all the way from 10 to 1. The tension builds relentlessly.

The technology is comparable to that in any garage.

The Mystery Science Theater guys are not in any scene.

The captain is considerate enough to spell out the new planet, "Andros I," for the preliterate.

Best of all, the movie end reliably, each time it's shown.

All things considered, the synergy is stunning. Stunning, I say.

Misunderstood yet very likable low budget sci fi

[marshalskrieg · 5/10 · 8 January 2020]

People are not 'getting' this one. They see cheap props, models, and crustaceans and they inwardly groan, but let me tell you, there is definitely something here that is worth your time. A spaceship with a crew of four who have good on screen chemistry (the always alluring Francine York plays a curvaceous lady scientist) more than adequate acting, a fine and evolving character development, decent dialogue, plus the spaceship is not too bad, possessing the right amount of claustrophobia, knobs, and buttons......The pace of this film, combined with the plot and action, keeps you engaged - you really will be wondering what will happen next. Here, simplicity is a form of complexity- less is more. My one beef : I think the early encounter with the alien could have been expanded upon.. This film was made in B& W in 1965- the whole thing looks and feels like it was made in 1959 or 1960, I think this is why it has a bad reputation- people expect so much more razzle dazzle for 1965, they cant see that this is an overlooked gem born too late.

Okay b-movie

[nancyann56 · 5/10 · 22 October 2006]

This is no better or worse than a lot of b-movies. The 50s and 60s spawned hundreds like this. Written & directed by Leonard Katzman who was the huge force behind Dallas in the 80s it is average for sci-fi of the time. The scenes underwater seem to be in a fish bowl. James Brown was a stoic(even emotionless)as the hero. He was later Det. McSween on Dallas under Katzman. Katzman also had a hand in the Wild Wild West TV show. If you like b-movies for the fun of " making fun" this is for you. I like this type of picture But to each his own. Francine York is worth a look. Their is no true science in the picture. I give it and overall b-rating of 5.

Weak

[vintagegeek · 4/10 · 13 September 2022]

Even for 1965 B movie science fiction this is weak. Go to space, sort of crash land on a planet, fight alien, leave. The male crew all looked like senior citizens, while cozying up to 30 year female scientist. But it's easy to sit through if you're tired and if it's on a no commercials channel. Even for 1965 B movie science fiction this is weak. Go to space, sort of crash land on a planet, fight alien, leave. The male crew all looked like senior citizens, while cozying up to 30 year female scientist. But it's easy to sit through if you're tired and if it's on a no commercials channel. Even for 1965 B movie science fiction this is weak. Go to space, sort of crash land on a planet, fight alien, leave. The male crew all looked like senior citizens, while cozying up to 30 year female scientist. But it's easy to sit through if you're tired and if it's on a no commercials channel. How do you get 600 words in a review for a movie that probably had dialogue of less.

It's a livable planet, but just stay out of the water.

[mark.waltz · 4/10 · 17 May 2022]

Unless you want to be a toothpick for a giant crab. This science fiction film is watchable but silly, a bit slow at times but often humorous in both intentional and unintentional ways. A group of astronauts and scientists are searching the globe for a livable planet to sustain human life, and somehow get off course. They end up underwater on an unnamed planet (that is until the end of the film) that surprisingly looks like Earth. In fact, it would have been a very funny twist if indeed it had been Earth and they didn't realize that where they landed had the creatures that they discovered.

Made on a very low budget, produced and directed by Leonard Katzman, this is the type of film that may not be as interest to young audiences today, but I'm sure teenage boys in the sixties loved it, as well as those who discovered it on TV up until maybe the early 90's. There certainly has been a lot worse films about space exploration, and the creatures they discover underwater really aren't very scary. What is funny is what a certain spaceship they see out in space actually looks like. There's a bit of amusing snark between scientists Francine York and the male astronauts, but of course that turns into romance with one of them. Not very realistic in the least, but a pleasant discovery for fans of Science Fiction and other film students.

Seen on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater in 1968

[kevinolzak · 2/10 · 18 December 2013]

1964's "Space Monster" was very much the last gasp for black and white outer space epics, bypassing theatrical release as part of American International Pictures' television package, shown continuously throughout the late 60s-early 70s (the very last, prior to "2001," would have been 1967's "Mission Mars"). Undoubtedly shot around the same time as David L. Hewitt's "The Wizard of Mars" (even using the same alien mask, plus a gill-man costume pilfered from Jacques Tourneur's "War-Gods of the Deep"), so little intrigue actually happens in either film that one does tend to feel for the actors involved, with writer-producer-director Leonard Katzman confining all future efforts to the small screen (he died in 1996). Francine York, James Brown, Baynes Barron, and Russ Bender play the quartet of devoted scientists, no strangers to low budget filmmaking: the still lovely Francine York graced such popular cult films as "Mutiny in Outer Space," "Curse of the Swamp Creature" and "The Doll Squad," Russ Bender remained a favorite with AIP ("It Conquered the World," "Invasion of the Saucer Men," "The Amazing Colossal Man"), Baynes Barron had some minor genre credits ("From Hell It Came," "The Strangler"), and James B. Brown will always be remembered for playing the sniper's father in Boris Karloff's "Targets" (already a veteran going back nearly 25 years, he had no other genre credits). Apart from two alien encounters, one aboard another ship, the other underwater, we never leave the claustrophobic confines of the tiny sets. It's truly mind-numbing when the cast has to gaze at a bevy of ordinary crabs outside, and not recognize what they're looking at! Totally small scale in ambition and execution, the execrable "Space Monster" appeared only twice on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater, Oct 12 1968 (following 1965's "Frankenstein Conquers the World") and July 24 1971 (following Jerry Warren's "Invasion of the Animal People").

Oh yeah. Bad Grade "B" Science Fiction.

[rinter-1 · 2/10 · 13 February 2007]

I first viewed this movie on Double Chiller Theatre, a Saturday night TV show seen in the Philadelphia area which ran in the mid 1960's. As a kid and a young teenager I loved almost all science fiction, even Teenagers from Outer Space. I found this movie dull, poorly improvised, and uneventful. It had a few cheap special effects which included a rubber alien, a giant crab which did little, and a humanistic frogman out for a swim. There were 4 typical principles in the movie: a by the book commander more suited for a cowboy movie; an attractive young lady who goes out of here way to prove she is as good as any man; a screw off who is aboard only to write a book; and a scientist who does not come off as being all that bright. This TV movie could have been made for the old Saturday matinée at the local theater. It was made with little imagination and probably just to earn a quick easy buck. The movie looked as though it was made in the early 1950's and had the feel of the old Space Cadet serial. And to think Star Trek would be only a few years away from our TV screens.

Looking for life on a strange planet.

[michaelRokeefe · 2/10 · 18 February 2002]

Directed and written by Leonard Katzman, this space probe is slow and lacks excitement. The special effects seem as if this TV project was produced ten years earlier. A team of scientists, including the attractive Francine York, set out in the year 2000 to find a livable planet in space. The craft is forced to land on a strange planet , where they are attacked by crusty humanoid sea creatures and giant crabs. The voyage turns out successful after all and they name the planet after a comrade they lost in their discovery...Andros 1.

Besides Miss York, this bad piece of Sci-fi features Russ Bender, Baynes Barron and James B. Brown. Take the journey, but don't expect much.

Fascinating low budget thriller

[drystyx · 8/10 · 23 April 2018]

This journey into outer space flick is fairly typical of the B movies, the low budget films that weren't supposed to be liked. As a result of being the low man on the totem pole, those involved made the most out of a little. That often resulted in the superior sci-fi flicks. Such is the case here. The overwhelming factor in these cases is the use of "credible characters in incredible circumstances", something I believe I was the first to use in critiques some thirty or forty years ago. Here, the astronauts are three men and a woman. They begin as seeming to be one dimensional, but that's where the writing, directing, acting team fool you. They gracefully become real characters, particularly the two supporting astronauts. I admit I usually pay more attention to the "supporting players", and usually it's the women who care about the romantic leads. The romantic lead pair go through this as a bit of a cliché, but show some dimensions in character near the end. All together, the quartet was superior to most of the "A movie" astronauts in credibility. The character of John Andros must have been the delight of the team making this film, and it's fascinating in the way they bring him along late, almost as an after thought, as though he would be just "hanging around". He is basically the story here, and I believe the story is told through his eyes, which I won't spoil by how it ends. There's a lot to like here. It is craftily directed. Despite the low budget and limited action, there's not a dull moment. It grips you throughout. That's some directing, writing, editing, acting, the who shebangs! There's even a terrific Gilligan's Island style dream sequence. A hidden gem. I probably won't put it on my top 20 sci-fi films of all time, but it's definitely in the top 40. Of course, as I noted before, this is more of a "man's movie" than a chick flick.

Great Special FX

[beable · 7/10 · 9 July 1999]

This movie is a classic. It has a sexist spaceship captain, who is very angry that a WOMAN has been assigned to his ship. The woman quickly puts him in his place. The special effects in this movie are totally unbelievable! You must see them! I am sure that other movies such as "2001" stole a lot of ideas from this classic. Also "Star Trek" is obviously playing homage to "First Woman In Space" with everything they do. WATCH THIS MOVIE TODAY! YOU WON'T BE DISAPPOINTED! Although you might be terrified by the horrific space monsters.

A Story Done Better Many Times Before

[theshadow1963 · 4/10 · 9 February 2021]

Space Probe Taurus is a (very) low budget sci-fi potboiler about the crew of a spacecraft that is not called Taurus. Made in 1965, it rehashes a lot of space movie cliches about 10 years too late.

The story begins with an astronaut staggering back to his ship and contacting Mission Control on Earth to inform them that the rest of the crew is dead and he has been fatally irradiated. After much pleading from the astronaut, Mission Control reluctantly remote-destructs the spacecraft to save the man from an agonizing death.

None of this has any connection to the rest of the movie. We don't even get an explanation for what happened, which was probably more interesting than the story we got instead.

The rest of the movie revolves around the crew of the space ship Hope, Earth's second manned expedition to space. The four-person crew consists of stock space-movie characters: Commander Stevens, the square-jawed commander who acts like he's never had a moment of fun in his life, Dr. Martin, the philosophizing older scientist, Dr. Wayne, the ship's female doctor, whose presence on the ship is resented by the commander who believes "space is no place for a woman", and Dr. Andros, the guy who challenges the commander's authority when he's not daydreaming about warm beaches and bikini-clad women.

The plot is episodic, with three distinct acts: the prologue and launch of the ship, an encounter with a free-floating alien ship somewhere near earth orbit and the stranding of the Hope on an alien world. The primary impression these incidents leave in the viewer is that at least two, and maybe three of the ship's crew are temperamentally unsuited for long, dangerous space missions.

While exploring a derelict alien ship, Commander Stevens and Dr. Andros have mankind's first encounter with an intelligent alien life form....whom Stevens promptly shoots dead. He then blows up the alien ship to...um...hide the evidence? It's not really made clear. Let's just hope there weren't any other survivors on the ship. It's also not made clear why Stevens has to plant the bomb INSIDE the ship, risking fatal radiation exposure from the ship's overloading reactor which will probably blow it up anyway.

Later, the ship malfunctions after a near-collision with a meteor cluster, causing the crew to land on a free-floating moon in the Triangulum galaxy that has a breathable atmosphere and temperate environment despite no sun to warm it. The ship sinks to the bottom of an ocean - in an upright position - and is surrounded by giant crabs. Andros scuba-dives to the nearest land mass for no other reason than to assess its suitability for colonization while the rest of the crew repairs the ship. This is where the film's low budget really starts to show, as Andros encounters a sea monster via stock footage from another movie.

The movie has some degree of tension and drama, despite a crew that seems on verge of falling to pieces, showing signs of melancholia and depression at the first setbacks to their mission. I would score this movie higher had it been made 10 years earlier, but by 1965, the Space Race was well underway, America and Russia had already sent multiple men into space and the rigors of space travel were well-known. The pulp-era space travel cliches that drive the plot of this movie, and the bad science behind them, are on the verge of being unforgivable. The crew has radio communication with Earth, despite being in another galaxy (although they can't communicate with Earth while the ship is submerged). Sending Earth's second space mission to another galaxy makes no sense with a entire solar system left unexplored. Stevens carries a handgun to a place where there's no certainty of a breathable atmosphere (the gunpowder in bullets needs oxygen to ignite). Dr. Wayne determines that the alien moon has a breathable atmosphere by examining an air sample - through a microscope! Andros swims to shore underwater, a trip we are told takes "a couple of hours", and back again after only a few minutes on land. Glossing over the incredible physical challenge of that journey - probably well beyond human limitations - he does it with only three air tanks.

The crew completes their mission by finding a world where humans can live - not to mention the awesome potential of a Red Lobster franchise (imagine all-you-can-eat crab night when the crab legs are 20 feet long!) and the wanna-be Gill Man that attacks Andros will soon find his species going extinct. Happy endings all around. Space Probe Taurus is an artifact of a genre that had already limped into obsolescence before this movie was even made. By 1965, space travel sci-fi was already branching into two different directions: realistic films based on scientific fact, a la 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Star Trek-style far-future space operas (the Star Wars-type space fantasies were still yet to come). For that reason, there is little to recommend this movie - even the special effects seem outdated for its time with Derek Meddings producing better special effects for Gerry Anderson puppet shows during the same year. Curiosity seekers looking for little-know films may find some nostalgia value in this movie; everyone else can give it a pass.

Abominable, appalling and a general offense.

[Tintin a Tokyo · 1/10 · 22 October 2000]

I fear the only other reviewer at this point, Mr "van Polasm" from Antarctica, is having us on.

As the schizophrenia of the various titles of this movie suggests (The First Woman in Space, Space Probe Taurus and [in Japan at least] Space Monster), the makers of this movie had no clue and were making it up as they went along. This movie, even considering it's TV movie status, deserves to be especially damned given that only 3 years separates it from Kubrick's 2001.

They crammed in so many 1950s sci-fi cliches that they didnt have time to follow any single one through to the end, and they filled the cracks with preposterously ludicrous scenarios and acting. As for special effects, think toilet paper rolls wrapped in foil and suspended from string.

What you have is 3 paunchy overweight blokes and one beautiful young woman as the "astronauts" on your typical early sci-fi "outer space rocket". What they're meant to be doing is anyone's guess until about two thirds of the film has elapsed.

Is the story about the feisty young woman vs. the crusty ol' sea dog cap'n? Well, no. That story is killed off after about 5 lines of dialogue when said crust forces said babe to admit her true feelings for him with a forcible kiss or three. Those were the days, when the man didn't even wait to hear yes or no, right? There's also a dream scene which looks like it was put in specifically to satisfy another paunchy old blokes desire to snog the young woman in a bathing suit.

Is the story about mankind's first encounter with alien life? Well, no. They come across an alien "outer space rocket" - no-one seems terribly surprised - go in, meet predictably humanoid and hideous alien, scuffle, kill it, blow up the alien ship. End of that story.

Next, flaming marshmallows, in the guise of meteors, knock the ship's computers into overdrive (we are told belatedly) and send the ship hurtling way off course right to a conveniently located earth-like planet. At this point in the story we find out that the mission was to explore another distant planet marked for colonisation.

Finally, just before the average viewer slips into a coma, there's time to fit in the following cliches:

* everyone losing their cool in a marooned ship, * narcissist sacrifices himself for good of all by being killed by predictably humanoid and hideous sea creature, * small scale model "outer space rocket" in fishtank attacked, well... harassed, by alien marine creatures everyone pretends not to recognise are ordinary crabs.

Just before the average viewer expires, the remaining paunchy old blokes and beautiful woman escape, declare the planet they just left good enough for colonisation (ahem,.. predictably humanoid and hideous sea creatures? Giant crabs?) and proclaim the planet be named after the dead paunchy old bloke.

This movie is awful, awful, awful with not a single redeeming feature - not even camp value. I spent more time, thought and effort in typing this comment than went into Space Probe Taurus. Avoid at all costs.

"I think it's some species of crab,"

[bensonmum2 · 2/10 · 5 September 2014]

In their search for an inhabitable world named Taurus, the crew of Hope 1 is sent millions of miles off course – only to discover another inhabitable world. That's really about it. Not much to see here. "Dull" would be my one word synopsis. A more competent movie might have done more with the alien space craft, flaming meteor showers, or the giant crabs, but not Space Probe Taurus. Instead, the movie is more concerned with the sexist commander and the (gasp) female scientist. You can probably guess how this goes – they fight and fuss until that inexplicable moment when they fall in love. Please! It's been done a million times – and usually in a more effective manner. The commander is played by James B Brown. He looks old enough to be the grandfather of love interest and lone female, Dr Lisa Wayne. Ewww. Francine York plays Dr Wayne and is the movie's loan bright spot. The other two cast members are just plain annoying – one, for being a stereotypical greasy money-hungry playboy and the other for being completely worthless.

I realize the movie was made by the notoriously low-budget AIP television division, but it's horrible by those standards. The movie was made in 1965, but looks and feels like it was made in 1955. You can find any number of sci-fi movies from the 50s with far better and more effective special effects. 2001: A Space Odyssey, with its amazing effects, was made only a couple of years later. And the incredibly tired sexist plot I've already mentioned feels more at home in something like Rocketship X-M from 1950 than a movie made in the more liberal thinking 60s.

Overall, not a good movie viewing experience.

See it on TV

[gatebanger · 1/10 · 17 April 2002]

This film is not worth even a rental. Unless you can find a place that will pay you $4 to watch it, that is. Even the poorest efforts generally have something to make them worth preserving. "Space Probe Taurus" appears to be the exception that proves the rule.

The script is horrible. The writer displays absolutely no scientific knowledge whatsoever. There is not a SINGLE CORRECT piece of science in the entire movie! From spacecraft decks that run the wrong way to dialog that makes even less sense than that of the average "Star Trek" episode, it's a mess.

As for the production in general, I'd rather watch four back-to-back episodes of "Tom Corbett, Space Cadet."

I must contribute to give this turkey a '1' rating...

[dsgraham212002 · 1/10 · 22 December 2015]

Even as awful Sci-Fi films of the 50's-60's go, this is a pile of cinematic dreck. If it had even the mildest intention of campiness or one stitch of humor, real science, or a hint of believable special effects, it might work even a little bit. But, quite unfortunately, it's dead serious without any of these redeeming qualities...and that's not a good thing.

I thought another 60's Sci-Fi film, "The Angry Red Planet", was bad regarding to sexist remarks applied to a female astronaut/scientist, but the gruff captain in this one tops it with his prejudices against women. No wonder feminism kicked in later on down the line. Oh yeah, he redeems himself later by realizing what an idiot he had been but falls short of openly apologizing (and there's an attraction to the woman too, of course. Such drivel).

The alien encountered with the 'busy tongue' is jaw-dropping in its stupidity. Where's the telepathy or alien language? Nope, it's tongue-ese! Other 'special' effects are laughable and easy to see 'how it was done'. They have been explained sufficiently by others here in this forum, so I'll withhold my own specific two-cents.

So, if you must see as many Sci-Fi film relics from this era, by all means watch...all others with any modicum of discernment, it's best to steer clear of all the clichés.

Three Stars is Generous for this Unintentional Comedy

[arthur_tafero · 3/10 · 19 July 2018]

I generally get more laughs from unintentional comedies than poor comedies. These are films that are supposed to be other genres such as Westerns, Sci-Fi movies, or dramas, that are so bad, that they are funny. This is one of those films. It appeared as if the ship crashes into the Hudson River off of Hoboken, New Jersey. I used to go crabbing there with my father; and sure enough. there were giant crabs in the movie. We might have even caught one of these in real life. There is a relative of the Creature From the Black Lagoon (a much better film), and the crabs. The romance in this film (if you can call it that) was one of the most hilarious parts of the movie. Please don't let your children see this film; it could give them the wrong impression of space exploration in the 60s.

About what you'd expect....

[planktonrules · 5/10 · 29 September 2015]

Leonard Katzman--AIP previous ship contacts earth--demanding they detonate the ship remotely--why didn't they ask for clarification? ha, ha--women are stupid find UFO in space--just floating there--board and shoot alien yr 2000 blown off course by meteors--land underwater constant sexual harassment these are the BEST astronauts? silly crabs scuba battles

"Space Probe Taurus" is about what you'd expect from a pre-"2001" sci-fi film--with the standard rocket ship, typical clichés and a sexy crew member to be sexually harassed.

When the film begins, an Earth rocket is in trouble and radios instantly back to the based to press the self-destruct button. Why? Who knows. All you know is moments later, another rocket is being sent into space and it has four crew members--and one's a hot lady who spends most of her time fending off unwanted sexual advances from two of the men.

Now here is the only part that IS unusual. They come upon a ship in space...just floating there. So, they do what any normal crew of astronauts would do...enter this ship, get into a brief fight with an alien and shoot him and then blow up the ship to hide the evidence!!! This was so weird and confusing...and, oddly, it seemed to happen in a vacuum.

Soon after, they are almost destroyed by meteors and are knocked off course--and are forced to land on a rogue moon. But, they unfortunately land under water! What's next? Well, it involves a bit of scuba and more contact with aliens as well as giant crabs (yes, they spared no expenses here!).

So is it any good? Well, it's at least not terrible. For fans of the genre it's what you'd expect and not a lot more.

By the way, if you DO see the film, the alien who is murdered can be seen in the film clips Disney shows in their Sci-Fi Dine-In restaurant at Hollywood Studios at Disney World.

Character makes illogical statement

[dominionlimo · 5/10 · 29 October 2023]

At one point the doctor explains evolution on Earth. "The first mammals were fish that crawled out of the water and became animals". "...fish...became animals...": makes no sense. Ancient fish were already aquatic animals before they crawled out of the water, so being on land did not make them animals. Also while all mammals are animals not all animals are mammals. The writer(s) need lessons in evolution, fauna, common sense, and logical thinking.

Other than that the movie is a prime example of a level B film from its era. Turn off your brain, suspend your disbeliefs and relax for 90 minutes.

Uneven mix of commendable and contemptible

[jamesrupert2014 · 6/10 · 5 September 2020]

The crew of an exploratory rocket deals with first a derelict alien spaceship and later giant crabs, as they search for inhabitable planets. The film is an odd mix of ambitious yet frugal, clever yet goofy, and interesting yet tedious. The spaceship (the Hope One) is a streamlined 50's-style finned chrome rocket but the take-off sequence is a batch of mismatched stock missile-launch footage. Details are given about the ships artificial gravity and how the crew-cabin rotates as the ship changes attitude but the narrator and the cast seem to mix up galaxies and solar systems to a point at which much of the 'astro-talk' is nonsensical (even by B-genre standards). Finding an ostensibly abandoned alien spaceship only to be surprised by a lone survivor is sci-fi gold, but the scene is undercut by the silly looking alien ('borrowed' from 1965's 'The Wizard of Mars') and the nonchalance of the crew after what would have been one of the greatest discoveries in the history of mankind. On the plus side, landing your rocket underwater and having it threatened by giant crabs is an inspired way to cheaply convey danger on an alien world (the motley looking gill-man that appears in the final reel (also 'borrowed', this time from 1965's 'War-Gods of the Deep') is a lot less inspired). The cast is fine for a cheap genre outing but the script is plodding and predictable (especially the interactions between the only female crew member and the misogynist captain, the lecherous scientist, and the avuncular scientist). Even the hoary old trope of 'pills for dinner' is dragged out in a feeble stab at comic relief. I saw some or all of 'Space Probe Taurus' decades ago and never forgot the image of the marooned spaceship surrounded by giant crabs and I really wanted to like the film once I found it again, so I forgave a lot of weaknesses in scoring it as high as I did. Flimsy execution aside, some credit is deserved for at least attempting to produce a real 'space opera' rather than yet another monster opus. Oddly memorable despite not being very watchable.

I've enjoyed a good movie. This wasn't it.

[doppleganger19692 · 2/10 · 21 October 2020]

A good movie needs a good story. A shame there isn't one involved in this production. Several scenarios that make no sense, and a mission that seems to make up guidelines as they go along. At least Ed Wood's movies had some kind of linear plot. This claustrophobic nonsense just stumbles along with a uber-macho lead, a cliche first officer, a doctor whose job seems to be to fill a cushioned recliner, and one of the lamest explanations for having a female crew member I've ever heard - but Francine York manages to rise above the creaky script and acting. I managed better special effects with far less budget. Bottom line: the only way to enjoy this movie is to utilize some recreational mood-altering substances, turn the sound off, and make up your own dialogue.

Not bad little sci-fi stuff

[searchanddestroy-1 · 18 February 2023]

I did not know this little science fiction movie produced by American International Pictures, James Nicholson and Samuel Z Arkoff's movie company, who also produced Roger Corman's best horror B movies. I am not badly surprised by this cheap stuff, but that's not at the level of Edward L Cahn's IT THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE, some kind of poverty row ALIEN first draft. It is definitely a space opera, but I repeat, very cheap. A "behind closed doors" of a spaceship intrigue, which is fun and agreeable to watch. I know Burt Topper as a director, nothing great, but nothing exceptional either. Here, he is only the producer and we can easily make the link between his own movies as a film maker in terms of - not screenplay, because he never made science fiction films - but an obviously lack of ambition without letting his own work become a garbage crap. Watch it, if you have time, it's worth seeing.

Mismosh of terms

[kennethfrankel · 3/10 · 23 July 2017]

Where to begin? They set off "to find new galaxies for colonization" in the year 2000. The narrative starts: "Beyond this, and into infinity, is Man's last frontier. Over 2 billion light years of solar system, reaching from the great clouds of Magellan to the galaxies of Andromeda and Triangulum". They go "far beyond Earth's universe". This is a sample. So they lift off from Cape Kennedy, which looks like a large desert. Actually seems to be a V-2 launch from White Sands, New Mexico. The meteor shower shows the objects on fire - not likely out in space with no air. Taurus the Bull is a constellation. You really can't go to a constellation - they are just outlines in the sky as seen from the Earth. Usually they are based on some figure that brighter stars have made. Go can go towards a constellation, but after some time you would pass the obvious stars and go beyond them, past our galaxy and on and on. "We should be nearing the Triangulum Galaxy". "Of all the lifeless galaxies we had to land on this planet". OK - A galaxy is a swirling cloud of stars and dust - billions of stars. A solar system is a group of 1 or several stars, and maybe planets, comets, asteroids and other junk, bound together by gravity. A constellation is an apparent shape made by some stars, originally. Used to tell stories or as an indicator of the seasons. (When you see this shape, start to prepare for winter - you would say that to your kids.) They have instant communication with the Earth control center. They at one point their speed is 125,00 - with no units, like MPH or meters per second. Triangulum is not really near the Taurus constellation at all. There is a nice galaxy there, M33. Mr. Messier made a list of things that look like comets, but are not. People would keep bothering him with their great discoveries. You may not realize that if you look at a galaxy with your eyes, it looks like a gray fuzzy blob. Maybe with a really big mirror you see more. Your eye is not a camera- that can take long exposures, or stack many pictures together. Then you get the nice color images. M33 is about 3 million light years away. Light goes 6 trillion miles in one year - that is what a light year is. The main problem is that these galaxies are really far away. We can't even get to a nearby star yet. To check out a galaxy would take eons of time. The writers give kids a wrong impression of things.

Lame 50's-style S/F film from 1965 -- in B&W (?!?)

[Norman_French · 4/10 · 4 February 2024]

I kind of like this AIP film, despite the familiar story and cheesy special effects. One planetary body appears to be made of crumpled aluminum foil. The ship's computer consists of a wall of reel-to-reel tape recorders. The filmmakers present this low-budget affair as a serious film; the characters are very solemn and philosophical at times, which adds to the amusement value -- there's no intentional campiness here.

Some of the "what if" dialogue is actually pretty good. There's a lot of 50's-style crew banter, which fits the retro (no pun) vibe. The crew get over their differences with time, which is refreshing compared to modern films that often wallow in dysfunction. However, the (very unprofessional) ladies'-man-in-space behavior by two male characters is painfully lame.

This is decent late-night fare, so I give it four (4) stars.