Captive Women (1952) Poster

(1952)

User Reviews

Review this title
7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
Film is of interest for what was at the time, a novel premise.
youroldpaljim9 February 2002
As I have stated elsewhere in this forum, film firsts should be noted and applauded even if the films they appear in are otherwise unremarkable. The vaguely titled CAPTIVE WOMEN is set in a post nuclear holocaust world where three warring tribes, "The Norms", "The Mutates", and "The Upriver People" battle each other for supremacy in and around the ruins of New York City and its environs in the year 3000. CAPTIVE WOMEN is the first film about the long term effects of nuclear war and how a nuclear war would drastically alter human society. ROCKET SHIP XM (1950) touched on this slightly, with it's nuclear war destroyed Mars and it's remaining Martians reduced to savage cavemen. In 1951 there was FIVE, but all that happened in that film was that a nuclear war reduced the number of people down to five. The plot of a nuclear war resulting in mankind being reduced to warring tribes turns up often in many later post nuclear war films, so often that it has become a cliche. Think of MAD MAX and its countless sequels and imitations. This plot was first introduced here.

However, the premise, new to films at the time, is really the only main point of interest. This story of warring tribes is rather slow going, even at a scant 64 mins. The cast looks want of direction, and most of the performances are over the top. The film is talky. The dialog is stilted and pretentious. Most of the film seems to take place at night, probably to hide the inadequate sets. The producers of this film also made THE MAN FROM PLANET X the year before on the same budget level as this, and cast some of the same people from that film. However, instead of bringing back Edgar G. Ulmer as director, they hired Stuart Gilmore, who seems to show little signs of pictorial imagination. The only interesting scene is a brief shot of the twisted, destroyed ruins of NYC. The only other point of interest is the presence of a very young Ron Randell as Riddon.

Before this film was purchased by RKO, it was titled 1000 YEARS FROM NOW, and was called 3000 A.D. in England. RKO studio head Howard Hughes dreamed up the title CAPTIVE WOMEN, which to me conjurs up images of some tawdry women in prison film and not a science fiction. Perhaps Howard thought his title had more pizzazz or something.
18 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Hope never dies
marshalskrieg10 June 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Did not expect much from this one but found it to be more than OK. Three factions contend with each other long after a nuclear war devastates the earth. A theological themes runs throughout- one side, disappointed that God seemingly has forgotten them turns to devil worship. This aspect could have bene more developed, but oh well. The plotlines and dialogue are very interesting, even if the fighting scenes could have used some more effort. The main thing here is the interpersonal relationships between characters from each faction. I sense that the scrip read deeper than it was acted out, which is a pity. The amazing use of a story from the Old Testament to win the final battle was pure genius- the ending sealed up this yarn as being a thought provoking morality tale all along.. 5 stars.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Mostly historical interest. not a whole lot to recommend it
lemon_magic29 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"Captive Women" seems to be mostly notable for being the first movie to play with the idea of a post-atomic war society. Most films from that time just assumed that atomic war would be the end of the world and humanity, but this film actually posits three competing groups of humans and mutants living in the wreckage of New York city in the distant future. For being the first movie story tellers to try such a thing, the people behind "Captive Women" have a place in cinematic history.

Too bad the movie itself is a bit of a dud.

I'm not just saying that because I am accustomed to the pacing, budgets, and more expansive conventions of later science fiction films. I saw "The Man From Planet X", also from 1952, with many of the same actors, and thought it was a great little film - its only real flaw was that it lost some focus and momentum for about 15 minutes in the 2nd half. Despite its very original idea for a plot, "Captive Women" isn't nearly as good.

Having come up with an amazing scenario for post-nuclear existence, the screenplay proceeds to fritter its capital away with stilted fake Elizabethan dialog, lots of walking scenes, flat acting, half-baked fight choreography, and a confusing jumble of events and character decisions that make little sense. In fact, watching this, I was strongly reminded of the work of noted movie "hack" Roger Corman - specifically his turgid and indigestible movie "The Undead". I'm sure Corman hadn't started his film career when this movie was made, but as my friend remarked when I brought this up, "Yeah...it's like Corman watched this movie and said to himself, "Oh boy! I CAN DO THIS!!!"

My favorite quibble with the slapdash, shoddy way this movie is put together is the way it handles "religion" and the search for meaning; one character from the "Uphill Tribe" mentions in a line of dialog that his tribe abandoned God and now "worships Satan(!!!)" instead. That's a very radical revelation, one that could potentially set up a clash of world views that could generate amazing conflict and contrasts. And yet the screenplay just lets that assertion gather dust for the rest of the movie. Instead, it becomes all about getting the breeding pairs, er, "Captive Women" back.

Also, the seemingly exploitation oriented title is a misnomer...the "Captive Women" are captured in a raid all right, but after one group captures them, the first group captures them right back. The UK title, "3000 AD" was a lot more true to the film's real intent, what little there was.

I'm not sorry I took the time to watch this, but I'm pretty sure that even back then, this dull little number probably got trounced pretty throughly as a piece of 2nd rate film making.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Strange, quasi-biblical, post-apocalyptic adventure
jamesrupert201419 March 2020
In the year 3000, the Norms, the Up-River Men, and the Mutates fight each other in, and under, the bombed-out ruins of New York City. Made less than seven years after the bombing of Hiroshima, this is one of the earliest movies to depict a 'Western' city destroyed in an atomic war. The opening images of the ruined skyline, and a later shot of a collapsed Brooklyn Bridge, are good (for the time and budget) and the plot, although simplistic, is quite compelling. The world of 3000 is intriguing: the mutates, who live on the surface, carry the marks of the "dark century" (presumably the 20th) and are shown as scarred and deformed (there is an early reference to extra fingers), and are desperately trying to breed out the problem by raiding the Norms for 'normal' women with which to mate. The Norms and the Up-River men (apparently 'normal' as well) despise the mutates and torture and kill them, both as punishment for the raids and because they think the Mutates inferior and unclean. The look of the future civilisations is standard Hollywood faux-classical/medieval and the script/delivery pseudo-Shakespearian (at one point, a mutate elder delivers a Shylockian plea for understanding when describing his people "Are we not flesh and blood? Do we not love and hate? Are we not born as you, die as you? Have we souls that are less than yours because our bodies are cursed?"). Oddly, the post-apocalyptic world seems a bit more real because, despite the mediaeval trappings and Elizabethan delivery, the characters have names like 'Rob' and 'Gordon'. The religious aspects of the film are also odd. The opening voiceover refers to "a true religion" as a legacy of the 20th century but the Norms rejected God in the aftermath of the war and are apparently now devil-worshipers while the Mutates remained Christians. Both the Norms and the Mutates know the story of the parting of the Red Sea, but the Norms as ancient myth, the Mutates as a story from the Good Book (the latter setting up the film's neo-biblical climax). 'Captive Women' is an odd title (alternate titles are '3000 A.D.' and '1000 Years from Now') and may be another biblical allusion: "When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God has delivered them into your hands, and you have taken them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her, and take her for a wife" (Deuteronomy 21:10-14) (or maybe as Bill Warren suggests, because RKO president Howard Hughes liked 'Captive Women' more). Despite the budget production values and pedestrian acting, 'Captive Women' is an interesting and watchable example of 'Atomic Bomb cinema': a cinematic relic from the earliest days of the Cold War and American nuclear paranoia.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Thought-Provoking Sci-Fi Morality Tale
vfx322 March 2011
A thought-provoking morality tale involving the dangers of atomic power, the thin veneer of civilization, and the pitting of good forces vs. bad ones. The apocalyptic glimpses of New York City in ruins (courtesy of matte painter Irving Block) and the quasi-Medieval/ancient Mediterranean costumes were definitely inspired by the science fiction pulp magazines of the 1940s, as well as the script. Acting fairly good, especially by Margaret Field (mother of Sally). The action moves swiftly, the sets are imaginative (especially the sewers where the Norms live and the tunnel that is beneath the river) and the film has a mood of haunting sadness that stays with one. A fairly expensive-looking production from producers Pollexfen, Wisberg, and Zugsmith, certainly costing more than Pollexfen and Wisberg's previous Sci-Fi classic, The Man from Planet X.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Groundbreaking post-Nuclear War picture
lor_3 February 2024
One of my sci-fi/horror/fantasy reviews written 50 years ago: Directed by Stuart Gilmore; Written and Produced by Jack Pollexfen and Aubrey Wisberg for Albert Zugsmith Productions. Released by RKO Radio Pictures. Photography by Paul Ivano; Edited by Fred Feitshans Junior; Music by Charles Koff; SPFX by Irving Block & Jack Rabin. Starring: Robert Clarke, Margaret Field, Gloria Saunders, Ron Randell, Stuart Randell and William Schallert.

An original post-Nuclear War opus. It's mutants versus the good guys as World War III's radioactive fallout has reduced mankind to a handful of survivors living in and around the New York subways, in this science fiction-horror combo, set in 3000 A. D.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tribal Tribulations...
azathothpwiggins14 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
CAPTIVE WOMEN is a 1950s, post-apocalyptic sci-fi film about three warring groups of survivors: The Norms, the River People, and the Mutates. It's the year 3000, and these groups spend most of their time killing each other. At one point, to break up the monotony, the Norms are overthrown by the River People. This is where the title comes into play.

In spite of its set-up that shows some stock-footage mushroom clouds, followed by a representation of a ruined NYC, this movie has far more in common with a "sword and sandal" saga than it does with contemporary science fiction. It also has an overtly religious message that may cause groaning for more modern audiences.

While quite dull in many places, it does manage to be just watchable enough for a viewing. That is, under the proper amount of inebriation with the right bunch of friends...
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed