No Blade of Grass (1970) User Reviews

Everything in it make perfect sense.

[Krapnov · 7/10 · 28 March 2008]

At least to me it does. True, this film is a little dated. True as well, most randomly inserted footage of polluted rivers/dead animals & flashback are annoying at best, not really providing any insight or contributing to the overall atmosphere of the movie ; but then, it cut the monotony of the roaming band, allowing a smoother transition for the following "action" scenes.

So indeed, this movie is not without its flaws, but I hardly understand some of the harsh comments regarding the acting or the scenario ; the casting is excellent and the storyline somewhat believable. Without giving too much clues, if you consider what they go through before getting to the countryside, I wasn't really shocked by the general "shot first and ask questions later" attitude of the "hero", nor did I find the relatively short span of time before the collapse of organized society surprising. (Just look at what a panicked mob can do today and just imagine that there was actually such a dramatic event as portrayed in the story...)

So overall, I'd highly recommend this movie for any amateurs of "end-of-the-world" movies, providing you can get past the pseudo-ecological message and the general feeling of age. (which shouldn't be a problem if like me, you love B movies from the 70's - 80's.) A great late-night movie to which I would really like to see a remake made.

Reverting back to survival.

[lost-in-limbo · 6/10 · 23 January 2010]

A bleak and uncompromising straight-laced minor b-grade apocalyptic sci-fi survival tale that's crudely made, but is grippingly constructed (despite a heavy-handed script and typically projected characters) and with committed acting led by the likes of a hardened Nigel Davenport, exuberant Jean Wallace and an unforgettably concentrated Anthony May.

John Custance, his family and friend decide to leave London to stay at his brother's farm in the Lake District, as just like the rest of the world Britain is plagued by a destructive virus caused by pollution that's destroying earth's crops and causing unstoppable panic. On their journey they pick up another couple Pirrie and Clara, but also come across a lot of obstacles and anarchy that would change the way they see things.

I wouldn't call it great, as it's an interestingly uneven production and somewhat cautionary tale that has its moments, but there are some problems evident that stop it being better than what it could have been. The two things that do stand out is the use of quick, fragmented flash forward sequences that take away any real sense of building upon surprises and suspense, to only confuse. Secondly it could have been a little more powerful in it theories of civilised society falling apart, as no one is better than anyone else in their primitive state to keep alive. What it feels like is over-the-top melodramatics and struggles, which aren't boring or emotionally forced but could have used a bit more weight. However what director Cornel Wilde develops is an effective apocalyptic vision of a dying world of dreary images (dead corpses --- humans and animals, decaying plant life and destruction of civilisation) covering brooding forlorn landscapes. Even what should be a peacefully desolated countryside, still provides looming threats outside the chaotic cities. Strangely moments had me thinking of M. Night Shyamalan's 2008 eco-thriller "The Happening". The violence has that exploitative, gritty touch with moments of relentless surges and unsettling intensity. It's not graphic, but it doesn't hold out. Wilde does use some odd, if static filming techniques that show its low budget but add to the moodiness, so does the haunting title song. The score can be harrowing when complementing the visuals, but could find it clunky and overdone. The performances are reasonably brought across, even with the black and white shadings.

Dated but entertaining environmental apocalypse movie

[robertemerald · 7/10 · 8 January 2020]

No Blade of Grass is unique in that the basic premise, a virus endemic that effecting grasses, is the bottom line for the disaster that overtakes the world and then, very quickly, British society. The filmmakers, to their credit, keep up a barrage of images of over-industrialisation and pollution throughout, something that reenforces their rather out of the box premise. It's a fantastic time capsule of left wing fears of its day, and it's a pity we didn't take greater notice of such works at the time. This movie precedes movies such as Mad Max (1979) by almost a decade, and surely influenced the genre. By 1979 apocalypse movies had certainly matured. One of the drawbacks of this movie is the unashamedly androcentrism, or view of a male dominated society. You cringe at how subservient and weak women are portrayed in this, and how the male lead insists on his own wisdom prevailing in all situations. It's not a democracy. One lass drops her caring and responsive fiancee for an impatient and intolerant desperado because she suddenly feels safer under the wing of this man whom had no qualms about shooting his own wife just hours before after the wife spoke too defiantly to him. Even though this poor lass is somewhat traumatised by a recent rape, the whole scene comes across as a shameless defence of the male-orientated view of 'law of the jungle'. The British class system is somewhat defended as well, with the upper middle class hero certainly cast in the role of natural leader. Mind you, he was a WW II veteran, another aspect of the movie that just breeches the surface here and there. And he is also a good actor with charisma. Indeed, all the cast were well chosen and perform well. The soundtrack is interesting and at times more modern than you'd expect for its day, with discordant instruments keeping up a steady reenforcing parallel to the tension. No Glad of Grass is a reflective movie of its day, with plenty of deaths but only one gush of blood, and beyond that only red trickles sprinkled on corpses, plenty of Western style pee-ow ricochet sounds from the rifles, and the 'outrageous' addition of two glimpses of breasts, one which is only breastfeeding. But such schlock is easily overcome by the dynamic pace of this movie. You won't be bored. No Blade of Grass is certainly a time capsule, but a very welcome and important one.

No Blade of Grass

[lindaberlinda · 17 January 2007]

I saw this movie only once years ago and have never forgotten it. I remember nothing about the direction. I only remember how horrified I was by the movie. With today's headlines of global warming, war (is it a war yet?)in the Middle East, horrible crimes against humanity worldwide, famine, ecological disasters, you name it... this movie pops into my head all too frequently. I wish it would come out on DVD. Certainly there are equally badly directed movies on the market today. I think this movie would strike a note today (even if it is snickering or guffawing at it's overall horridness). It may not be as good as Shawn of the Dead, but it has certainly stuck in my mind over all these years as one of the best consuming ecological disaster movies I've ever seen.

An Inconvenient Truth - 26 years ago!

[udar55 · 7/10 · 21 May 2006]

I finally watched my copy of NO BLADE OF GRASS tonight and I enjoyed it. Parts in the beginning are a bit heavy handed (most of the score doesn't help either) but it film gets better as it progresses. Nigel Davenport is certainly restrained as the leader of his group. Nothing like that stiff upper lip when you are telling people to try and not shoot your brother. I like it when Davenport's group encounters the other group and, after they blow away their leader, everyone immediately accepts Davenport as the new leader. I also love the end where the narrator says, "This film is not a documentary...but could be!" I guess they knew Al Gore was going into the film-making business back in 1970.

You can see the film was influenced a bit by George Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968). But what is more interesting is you can see how this may have ended up influencing Romero with both THE CRAZIES and DAWN OF THE DEAD. Most notably with DAWN is the fact that the survivors encounter a group of motorcycle savages at the film's end. I also think the makers of 28 DAYS LATER had to have seen this. I know the screenwriter admits being influenced by DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS for the beginning but some of the bits in this are very similar (the soldiers, the fortified estate).

"The guilty don't deserve to die as quick as the innocent."

[Hey_Sweden · 7/10 · 10 August 2019]

Producer / director Cornel Wilde ("The Naked Prey"), working from an adaptation by Sean Forestal & himself of the John Christopher novel, fashions this material into a decent exploitation-message film. Ultimately, it's a retread of earlier films like "Panic in Year Zero", but it's generally well done. It's certainly well acted, and Wilde does come up with ways to make the film visually striking. (Such as the countryside littered with animal corpses.) He gives the story a polished presentation, complete with some harsh and uncompromising moments.

The idea is that humans have finally contaminated their home planet so badly that a virus has emerged that affects things like grass, wheat and rice. London descends into a state of utter chaos, and amid this societal breakdown, the Custance family makes the very long trek up North to where John Custance (Nigel Davenport) has a brother (Patrick Holt) with a farm. The Custance family acquires numerous other travelling companions along the way.

The deliberately stylized "flash forward" shots are a little disconcerting, but mostly Wilde sticks to the meat and potatoes of the tale. He's not afraid to show things getting grim, showing us that, in the end, survival can be a pretty ruthless business. And basically good people like the Custances can make alliances with a somewhat shady individual named Pirrie (Anthony May).

Wilde lays on the message a little thick with the opening minutes of stock footage, but soon draws us into the story proper, thanks to an effective, time-honoured premise and generally good acting. Davenport is solid as a no-nonsense, take-charge kind of guy, with the real-life Mrs. Wilde, Jean Wallace, cast as his wife. John Hamill, Lynne Frederick, Anthony Sharp, George Coulouris, Wendy Richard, Nigel Rathbone, Christopher Lofthouse, Ross Allan, and Christopher Neame comprise a very fine supporting cast.

Overall, a respectable effort that also works because the Custances and their followers do create a strong sense of community.

Seven out of 10.

Mediocre futuristic horror movie

[AlsExGal · 5/10 · 3 April 2017]

The ubiquitous success of the zombie horror genre is, I believe, not due to the zombies as much as the depiction of societal breakdown and collapse, and the struggles of modern man to survive in a once-again savage, primordial world. That struggle is the focus of this environmental catastrophe tale, co-written and directed by Cornel Wilde.

In a near-future UK, a family decides to leave London and head north when a spreading virus has decimated the worlds crops, leading to rampant starvation and outbreaks of anarchy. The family hopes to reach the safety and security of an uncle's secluded farm. Along the way they run into the usual apocalyptic obstacles: scarcity of supplies, violent hooligan teens, rape-gangs, motorcycle savages, seemingly normal townsfolk turned murderous in the face of privation. Can the family make it to safety with both mind and body intact?

Even making allowances for the film's age, this is pretty goofy. The acting is passable at best. The script has all of the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the cranium, with repeated scenes of pollution and nature despoiled. Wilde also made the poor decision to place several flashes of future events throughout the film, which only serves to spoil said events when they eventually occur in the progression of the story. The soundtrack features a corny theme song by Roger Whittaker and a lot of bad acid rock instrumentals.

British retelling of...

[baronvonsteve · 7/10 · 24 January 2023]

...Panic in Year Zero. A realistic examination of how quickly civilization can devolve and asks if one can preserve morality and civility in a world turned savage. The situations feel gritty and genuine. The way different personalities react and try to cope feels very authentic. However, it does get a bit long winded and quirky. It almost has a touch of Dr Who of the same era including the sound track. Panic in Year Zero is a bit tighter of a film and fits into it's decade (1950s) quite well with the backdrop of nuclear war. This film is set more in it's present day but in the future sort of. It's a decent B movie and has its moments. Just don't expect high budget effects or zombies.

Exodus in a new guise

[jjvignol · 4/10 · 25 July 2007]

What most people seem to have missed is the Exodus theme and the Moses figure of the main character. He leads people to a new promised land in the midst of chaos and plague. He is assisted by a Joshua character who does the organizational work and heads the military actions. The daughter's fiancé is the hesitant and uncertain Aaron. Somewhat confused overall and not as effective as it could have been. The flash forwards were distracting and set up an anticipation that detracted from the present scenes. It is difficult to see how the film was an argument for environmental causes. It would be better seen as a cautionary tale on the fragility of society. Given a socially disruptive situation people are often incapable of recognizing the need for social order and become, instead, survivalists. Social order is even more necessary when normality is undercut and crisis events threaten to overwhelm our institutions.

This motion picture is not a documentary but it could be. HA!

[Coventry · 6/10 · 26 May 2017]

In case there ever had existed a special type of award entitled: "best movie to make its audience feel guilty about their stupidity and reckless behavior", the price undoubtedly should go to Cornel Wilde's "No Blade of Grass"! Particularly during the opening sequences, but in fact also non-stop throughout the rest of the film, we are confronted with endless shots of pollution and starved animals. A stern voice- over also repeatedly states that only humanity is to be blamed for the destruction of our planet. I've never seen "An Inconvenient Truth" but I'm pretty sure it can't be as preachy as this one. Heck, I even started to feel very guilty and responsible for all the pollution, and I wasn't even born yet when "No Blade of Grass" was released! The first 10-15 minutes of the film solely exist of montages of factory chimneys producing thick clouds of orange smoke, airplanes spraying pesticides, overpopulation, oil spills, deforestation, enormous traffic jams, close-up of cars' gasses, nuclear testing and industries dumping waste into the sewers. Then the eerie voice-over suddenly states: "Then, one day, the polluted earth could take no more…" So, in case it wasn't clear yet, due to continuous pollution, a still unidentified virus destroyed all the earth's crops and the world's cities are rapidly becoming extinct. John Custance wants to lead his wife and daughter to safety, and together with his befriended scientist Roger Burnham, they sneak out of London and head towards Scotland where his brother David has a farming estate. The journey is long and – as they quickly discover – full of danger. They must confront villainous biker gangs that want to rape and murder them, but also regular and once- civilized people like themselves that are prepared to do whatever it takes to survive. "No Blade of Grass" constantly balances between vicious post-apocalypse exploitation and genuine human melodrama. Director Cornel Wilde clearly wants for his film to be a more intelligent and thought-provoking end-of- civilization drama, but it's actually one of the meanest and most violent ones of its kind. The title song is simultaneously powerful and depressing, but unfortunately there are also quite a few dull and unnecessarily slow-paced moments as well as shallow dialogues and stereotypical characters. "No Blade of Grass" is certainly a must-see for fans of bleak apocalyptic cinema, but in all honesty I still expected more from it.

On-the-cheap film of a minor sci-fi classic

[winstonnc-1 · 2/10 · 17 February 2012]

I read the novel when I was a lad but was never able to lay hands on the film until recently. The movie is far worse than I had imagined it could be. The acting is very bad - the female lead, played by producer-writer-director Cornel Wilde's wife - is among the worst actresses I've ever seen. She's right up there with Mrs. Tom Laughlin in the horrendous "Billy Jack" movies. The rest of the film is also poorly cast - though it was fun to see one or two familiar faces pop up, among them a prominent actor from "Citizen Kane." The film seems to have been so badly under financed that Wilde was forced to pad the film with stock footage of belching smokestacks, polluted rivers and dead animals. The garishly colored flash forwards are a miserable idea, as is Wilde's narrowing of the frame in scenes of childbirth and particularly gruesome animal carcasses.

A very brutal, chilling & potent end-of-the-world film

[Woodyanders · 8/10 · 20 May 2006]

Cornel Wilde, widely regarded as one of the truest and purest of cinematic primitives due to his blunt, sinewy, straightforward and nonjudgmental presentation of "civilized" man and his disturbingly easy capacity for violence given the correct stimulus, here depicts a very chilling vision of societal collapse in this ecology-minded sci-fi end-of-the-world movie. Mankind's gross polluting of the environment begets a lethal virus which kills off the earth's crops, resulting in famine, mass panic and hysteria, rioting in the streets, and the violent breakdown of society itself. Rugged, resilient and resourceful former military man survivalist Nigel Davenport, his equally strong and durable wife Jean Wallace (Wilde's real life spouse and frequent lead in his pictures), Davenport's fragile, virginal daughter ("Vampire Circus" 's adorable Lynn Frederick) and son, the daughter's nice guy fiancé, a loutish brute and the brute's slutty wife leave London and make a perilous pilgrimage across the desolate, dangerous countryside. Many wayward travelers join the group and form a ragtag army which fends off a savage gang of murderous rapist bikers. Wilde relates this grim premise with his usual stark, spare and no-frills muscular style (although the occasionally clumsy use of flash-forwards badly dates this film), keeping sentiment to a bare minimum, tautly maintaining a properly bleak tone, offering up an upsetting array of jarring visuals (i.e., a dry, barren landscape littered with animal corpses), and refusing to resort to cheap moralizing, but still clearly spelling out the harsh, albeit absolute necessity for killing in order to remain alive and persevere in a barbarous world. A bit crude and rough around the edges, but overall an extremely powerful and unsettling film.

get the pots

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 26 April 2020]

The environment is under assault by humanity. Then a new virus destroys the world's grasses. Wheat, rice, and other foods are wiped out. Starvation devastates Asia and Africa. Drastic measures are considered in Great Britain. Architect John Custance (Nigel Davenport) is a former military man. He leads his family north to his brother's farm in Scotland as the country falls into chaos.

In the age of pandemic, some of the opening premise sounds familiar but much of it doesn't really make sense. Not all foods are grasses. It would make more sense if all plant life is dying off. Of course, the movie would have a tough time filming that in Britain. The country doesn't have that kind of locations. Next, there is a rush to the civilization collapse. The movie needs to insert "Weeks Later" somewhere before the family start their journey. There is also some badly done foreshadowing throughout the movie. The directions are not the best but it's good enough for a B-movie. The characters are drawn well but the progression is a bit ragged. It has some of the fun but also some of the silliness of the era's apocalyptic films.

No Blade of Grass - Where was Wilde's Thinking?

[krocheav · 2/10 · 30 April 2016]

We've been told that Cornell Wilde was an avid fitness and environment enthusiast (but this unfortunately didn't seem to help him much in the end). His main intentions may (or may not) have been in the right place but either way he was sadly out of his depth with this subject. I enjoyed (if that's the right word) his 1966 "The Naked Prey" but here, he miss-fires on so many points:- Over the top sensationalistic details of exploitative situations (so-called 70s reality) ~ clumsy editing complete with ridiculous flash forwards ~ everyday family folk who simply walk away after committing crimes they would never have contemplated just a few days before! ~ overuse of typical 70's lab effects in an attempt to gloss up weak images ~ bland el-cheapo music score (except for a main title song nicely performed by Roger Whittaker - and he's not even mentioned in IMDb's credit listing!). It all added up to a messed-up message film in the worst of 70's style. In many ways it's worse than some of the low budget 50's films it emulates.

This movie is yet another sad failure in Wilde's behind the camera career - perhaps had he left the cause for most of the resultant mayhem at chemical warfare, instead of steering the screenplay toward smoke stack type pollution, it may have been more convincing. AND have to say NO, to those that have made the suggestion of a re-make - haven't we had too many poorly made examples already.....(this subject would need a high end - intelligent film maker along the lines of Peter Watkins' brilliant doco style production 'The War Game' from 1965, to do it true justice and there seems little chance of that....)

I did read the novel, deservedly a classic.

[gmr-4 · 20 December 2001]

Standing alone, this film might have been alright; then comes the "but."

But . . . it certainly does not do justice to the story, and it is a mere technicality that the film makers/ writers tweaked the plot to make it an anti-pollution diatribe instead of a bacterial warfare experiment that got away from the Communist Chinese, which is MUCH more believable. The story was also about the failure of government and the transmutation of personality under crisis that would have added time and complexity to this simplistic film -- but would have been worth it. Especially annoying is the addition of the young pugnacious fellow traveller who is a completely different character in the novel, and much more interesting. However, he was deemed inappropriate for a youth-oriented film in 1970.

One commentator has called for a re-make and I agree. NO BLADE OF GRASS was a slap-dash hybrid of an action-adventure with environmentalist overtones, but does justice to neither. This could have been an epic "quest" story as a new social order arises, plus a commentary on fooling with Mother Nature at the risk of civilisation's collapse.

Strong but preachy and exploitive

[preppy-3 · 6/10 · 30 March 2012]

In 1972 the world is falling apart. Man has polluted the Earth so badly it starts to fall apart. A virus infects all the grass, all the water and people are dying left and right. In England the Custance family leave town in a hurry to get to his brothers place far away in the moors. They end having to fight and kill to get there.

**SPOILERS AHEAD** This is strong stuff. It doesn't pull back and (for a 1970 film) it's pretty brutal. There is a double rape which is almost impossible to watch, a gruesome childbirth (with the baby born dead no less) and tons of shootings and killings. END SPOILERS

It's also well-written and acted making it even harder to shake off. But it has some serious issues too. There are ENDLESS shots of polluted streams, polluted air and dead animals. We get the point early on--it doesn't have to be shoved in our faces. The family runs into a huge bunch of people also struggling for survival and they ask them along! Why? There's not enough room or food for them! There are confusing flash forwards which ruins some of the suspense and do we really need a title song? Even dumber they have hottie John Hammill in the cast (who was most well known for his good looks and great body) and keep him fully clothed. He loved stripping down to his underwear (or less) in most of his movies but not here. Also there are plenty of ham-fisted attempts at irony which are so obvious that I felt like laughing a few times. There's no real ending either.

Still, it was well-done, it does have an important message and the acting is great. So it's worthwhile but unpleasant. I give it a 6.

Dark as hell

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 19 February 2021]

NO BLADE OF GRASS (1970) is a British apocalyptic science fiction film based on the novel THE DEATH OF GRASS by John Christopher. Now, I absolutely loved the book - it's up there with Wyndham's DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS for me - so I was eager to see how this adaptation turned out. It was directed by former Hollywood star Cornel Wilde from his own screenplay, and it certainly plays up the horror inherent in the end-of-the-world story.

This uniquely British effort sees the world's grasses destroyed thanks to a plague that originated in China. Soon, food shortages and rioting are taking place around the world as the human race descends into anarchy. Nigel Davenport plays John Custance, a London-based architect who decides to take his family and a few associates up to his brother's stronghold in Cumbria. The format of the film is a road trip following the group's violent journey as they encounter various unpleasant types along the way. Never has a family trip up the A1 been so deadly!

There are plenty of disturbing moments here, particularly a scene of gang rape and child rape featuring nudity from the underage actress Lynne Frederick, later to become Mrs Peter Sellers. It feels influenced by those biker 'roughies' that were popular on the American grindhouse circuit in the late '60s/early '70s. Meanwhile, a climactic Hell's Angels attack is very similar to the one in DAWN OF THE DEAD and you wonder if Romero saw this when writing that film's screenplay. The most shocking moment is when a pregnant woman goes in labour and we cut to graphic shots of a REAL life birth; I wasn't expecting that one and have never seen any other director pulling the same stunt! DRACULA A.D. 1972 star Christopher Neame plays the baby's father in his pre-Johnny Alucard days. This isn't a great film - it's a far cry from the quality of the book and it lacks all of it's nuance and psychological realism - but for anyone wanting some dark-as-hell viewing it's worth a look.

Inept

[antonymartin · 3/10 · 9 January 2013]

The author of Death of Grass, John Christopher (real name Samuel You'd - for some reason,the IMDb site keeps adding an apostrophe to the name) didn't see this film at the cinema when it was released.

Years later, when it was broadcast as a late night movie, he sat down to watch it in a comfy chair, a glass of whisky to hand. He lasted until the first advert break and then, sensibly, retired to bed.

This cries out to be remade - one or two of John Christopher's other novels would make interesting films, too.

John Christopher was often compared to John Wyndham and the similarity certainly exists - although Wyndham had the edge.

I wish IMDb would withdraw the 10 line minimum requirement - seems a bit arbitrary!

Early Post-Apocalyptico

[Tweetienator · 6/10 · 27 May 2022]

A solid and early contribution to the whole (post-)apocalyptic business. Production quality and acting are good enough, and what I like most about No Blade of Grass is that it tries to give us a realistic glimpse in how a world-wide breakdown of society would develop and progress - so we don't get only a Mad Max and one of his many clones but a more realistic story about a family struggling for survival in an increasingly anarchistic world. Of course, we get also a solid dose of violence and a nasty biker gang in denim and leather (maybe an source of inspiration for Mr. Romero and his Dawn of the Dead?). Anyway, no masterpiece but a solid one for the right eye.

Is this how tribes developed?

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 13 August 2016]

Cornel Wilde who was acclaimed for Beach Red ran short with No Blade Of Grass where he is only behind the camera. The film stars Jean Wallace the real life Mrs. Wilde and Nigel Davenport as her screen husband.

Davenport is a scientist and mankind seems to have come to an end. There's a virus probably developed by us that is killing all the grass and not just grass. Wheat, oats, rice, those things that are animal fodder is also dying. With that government is breaking down as people are starving.

We also find out what a luxury urban centers can be. More authoritarian governments are just killing off urban centers to save the rest. The raisers of food are always the backbone of any society.

Davenport and Wallace and their family leave London to try and make for farm country and his brother's farm. Along the way society breaks down more and more as Davenport by virtue of his charisma attracts a small following. One has to wonder is this how tribes developed as humankind was beginning its evolutionary rise.

It's a sincerely made and cause driven project, a bit heavy handed at times. But the message is clear about preserving our environment and our food growing capacities.

One of the Better Apocalyptic Movies for Its Time

[Uriah43 · 6/10 · 1 September 2022]

This film essentially begins with several scenes of pollution on a massive scale throughout the world with the result that a new virus has developed which begins killing a great amount of the cereal grasses mankind depends upon for food. Naturally, with this development, starvation begins to take a devasting toll starting in Africa and spreading across the world with social unrest following in its wake. The scene then shifts to London where a relatively influential scientist named "John Custance" (Nigel Davenport) has obtained information about drastic actions about to be implemented throughout Great Britain and he decides to take his wife "Ann Custance" (Jean Wallace) and teenage daughter "Mary Custance" (Lynne Frederick) to a more rural area up north where his brother "David Custance" (Patrick Holt) has a farm. Also traveling with him is his assistant "Roger Burnham" (John Hamill) who also just happens to be Mary's boyfriend. Be that as it may, realizing that there are violent mobs between them and their final destination they decide to stop at a gun store along the way to purchase additional firearms and ammunition. Unfortunately, when the shop owner refuses to sell them anything, things take an immediate turn for the worse resulting in the owner being killed by his own employee "Andrew Pirrie" (Anthony May). In gratitude, John agrees to allow both him and his wife "Clara Pirrie" (Wendy Richard) to travel with them. What John doesn't realize, however, is that Andrew is much more aggressive than most people and it will take all of the leadership skills John has to keep him in line. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that--as far as early apocalyptic films are concerned--this is probably one of the better ones out there. At least for that specific time period. It does, however, seem a bit mild in comparison to those produced within the last 20 or 30 years--but that's probably to be expected. Of course, whether or not viewers in this day and age will enjoy this movie is another matter entirely.

About as much to fun to watch as surgery...and a great example of a good film ruined by bad direction.

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 22 January 2020]

"No Blade of Grass" is a difficult movie to watch. It's depressing beyond belief, graphic and even includes a rape*. It is NOT for the squeamish or someone looking to enjoy what they are watching!

The story is a near future sci-fi film about the apocalypse. Pollution and mismanagement of the planet has resulted in plagues and food shortages...and in some cases cannibalism. In a few cases, such as China, to alleviate the shortages, the government has been wiping out millions in the hopes that others will survive. Eventually, much of the world degenerates into anarchy...with the strongest and most ruthless surviving. In the midst of this is an English family that is trying to make its way to family living in the Scottish wilderness. And, along the way, their morals vanish and it's all about survival at almost all costs.

The idea behind all this is creepy and hard to watch. It is, despite this, an interesting and thought-provoking picture. But it also suffers from one huge problem...bad direction by Cornel Wilde. The actor just seemed to suffer from excessive edits (which were often sloppy and nonsensical) as well as a need to focus on the gross...such as rotting animal carcasses and naked females who had been assaulted. It made me feel a tiny bit dirty watching it. It also featured folks behaving incredibly irrationally at times--very nonsensical such as during the biker gang attack....NONE of that made any sense.

Overall, a chilling picture that is handled somewhat ham-fistedly. For a much better sort of thing, try PANIC IN THE YEAR ZERO with Ray Milland.

*Reportedly, one of the victims was played by an underage actress...and this was just awful and unnecessary.

Totally amoral. Uniquely compelling.

[frank-930-93440 · 10/10 · 23 January 2012]

Just watched again, this for the first time in thirty years. It was as I remembered it - dreadful soundtrack, some stilted direction, full-on eco- warrior ranting, but it doesn't matter. The movie has no clichés, no happy ending, no holding back, no false veneers of good guys and bad guys. I am wracking my brains to come up with a similarly amoral film, from the English speaking world - yes, we might see something of this type from the French new wave, we might see it in Korean or Japanese movies of today, rarely. Sonatine comes to mind. But in a British movie of the 1970s, set in our own countryside?

Inspired, bleak, flawed of course and very dated, but damn close to unique. Damn prophetic too. If you want to see what an anti-hero *really* looks like, look at Anthony May's Pirie. Possibly the most plausible EOTW film around.

The Walking Dead meets....The Green Party

[rbrb · 7/10 · 10 April 2017]

This is a surprisingly entertaining albeit dated movie. Due to pollution, an environmental holocaust ensues, and a group of individuals battle for survival. Plenty of graphic action and explicit violence. Need to get accustomed to the flashback and flash forward technique used in the film. Moralizing and messaging is a feature of the picture which goes with the period it was made. Nonetheless very nearly a cult classic! Nigel Davenport is a fine charismatic actor. Deserves credit for wearing an eye patch which has nothing to do with the story but because of his own real life medical condition.

6 and a half rounded up:

7/10.

The Book is Better

[mhorg2018 · 4/10 · 3 December 2023]

I know, I know. In most cases, when a book is adapted (or ignored except the title-see THE HOBBIT and about ten thousand other books made into film), one always hears this. In this case, 100 percent true. I waited years to see this, after having read the book many times, and was totally disappointed. Over-acting, lack of a budget, why an American as the hero when this takes place in England? I like Cornel Wilde, and he does play a man who, like Ray Milland in Panic in Year Zero, learns to be brutal. But the movie drags in far too many places and some the of the actors are pretty wooden. It attempts to show society fall apart and tear itself up, but falls a little short.