I’m going to have to confess that I’ve drifted away from contemporary Sci-Fi movies, or maybe they have drifted away from me. It’s a tricky genre in many respects; there is the obvious need to make movies that entertain, but in order to rise above mere popcorn fare it is necessary to have a story underpinning it all that asks questions or offers ideas for consideration. Now one could say that this applies to all genres and I’d tend to agree. Yet what sets Sci-Fi apart is the fact its inherent inventiveness and malleable boundaries allow for a more enticing examination of themes that might appear dull if presented in other genres. I guess it boils down to the need to strike a balance between the entertaining and thought-provoking aspects.
Growing up, I was entranced by classic Sci-Fi, and the entertainment quotient was what grabbed my attention back then. Later, I came to appreciate the way that many of these movies wove social and philosophical commentary in among the thrills. Of course filmmaking has changed a lot over the years, and the visual effects that enhance and enrich the wondrous nature of Sci-Fi have advanced impressively. Sometimes I think that this huge improvement also conceals behind its cloak of digital magic the seeds of my gradual dissociation from the genre. Has the balance shifted a little too sharply, and has the superabundance of visually startling imagery and whizz-bang effects obscured some of the thoughtfulness that once characterized the best of the genre? I found myself wondering about such things as I watched Hammer’s X the Unknown (1956) the other day, the type of cheaply made movie that fascinated my younger self, and still does in fact.
Paranoia fueled so many of the great classic era Sci-Fi movies with the concept of the enemy within growing out of the Cold War and the fears and misunderstandings that accompanied it. Often the enemy within was presented as an infiltration of society, either on an individual or communal level. X the Unknown takes a different path, one leading not to the heart of mankind but to the heart of our planet itself with the implication that our greatest threat comes not only from a fatalistic and seemingly unstoppable force of nature, but one which has been festering away deep below the surface, practically written into the DNA of our world. It’s a fine idea in itself and the execution offers a lesson in how to extract as much suspense and implied horror as possible on a shoestring. It all begins during a tiresomely routine military exercise, the random placement of a mildly radioactive object causing the sudden appearance of a mysterious fissure and the consequent death and destruction that is unleashed. The frequency of fatal encounters with whatever broke free of that fissure gradually picks up pace and even leads to the leveling of that old charge that scientific tinkering and dabbling lies at the root of it all. That notion, happily, is given short shrift, dismissed almost the moment it is uttered and both challenged and disproved by the close. I have an unpleasant feeling though that were this movie to be remade today, in a climate where quackery is all too often hailed while science is belittled, the reverse might actually be the case.
In all honesty, however, I don’t see how a movie like this would be made at all nowadays. The cast is almost exclusively male and middle-aged at that. There is nothing remotely glamorous about leads such as Dean Jagger and Leo McKern, but what they do bring is a sense of calm authority and a reassuring coziness (and I use that term without any pejorative undertones) amid all the mayhem. The source of the danger is kept out of sight for most of the running time, only glimpsed very briefly before the one hour mark and sparingly and sporadically thereafter. It works on the principle that what exists in the mind’s eye is apt to be more unsettling than full exposure to creaky effects. A modern version would feel obliged to conjure up and highlight some effect that would undoubtedly dazzle yet would also be less likely to capture the suspense that comes from dread unseen.
Hammer had just made and enjoyed success with their version of Nigel Kneale’s The Quatermass Xperiment and so were looking to capitalize on that with a follow up. Kneale appears to have objected to the name of his lead scientist being used and so Jimmy Sangster’s script has Adam Royston rather than Bernard Quatermass desperately seeking a way to battle the terror seeping from the Earth. Had Kneale been involved, it seems likely the plot would have involved some kind of alien presence or interference. That would undoubtedly have been a literate and intelligent approach, but I have to say I rather like the fact that what we got is a wholly terrestrial and primal threat – somehow the notion of danger emanating from that which we know best and which is dearest to us adds an attractive twist to it all. If you’ll forgive the pun, it serves to ground the story. While I wouldn’t quite categorize it as an early Eco-thriller, it does raise questions about our symbiotic relationship with the planet itself. Leslie Norman directs efficiently and briskly enough, though it is tempting to wonder how it might have turned out had first choice Joseph Losey not dropped out. It has been said that the blacklisted Losey was removed at the insistence of Jagger, but there are also claims that it was actually down to a health problem suffered by the director.
X the Unknown was given a Blu-ray release in the US back in 2020. I’ve only seen some images from that version and they look appealing, sharp and in a 1.75:1 ratio. My own copy is a long out of print UK DVD that appears to be open matte. While it won’t have the crispness of the BD, it’s not a bad effort and, in my opinion anyway, remains perfectly watchable. This is the kind of Sci-Fi I adore, modest in scale yet expansive enough in vision and imagination to override its technical limitations.
Riding the High Country 
I love it Colin. One of Hammer’s best movies. Jimmy Sangster does a remarkable job of imitating Kneale and Quatermass and the whole movie exudes a feeling of lurking menace, beautifully helped by the crisp black and white photography. Even the low budget effects work holds up extremely well and adds to, rather than overwhelms the story. A winner.
LikeLike
Jon, I too like the way Sangster gets the suspicion and menace of a typical Kneale yarn across, but still manages to make it his own by internalizing the source of the threat. I find that aspect alone quite clever. And the fact they didn’t rely too heavily on effects means that they were able to make those they did use look as good as possible.
I’m very fond of these early Hammer Sci-Fi pictures and one part of me regrets they didn’t make a few more in tandem with their horror output. The Gothic horrors clearly made money for them and became their trademark and I suppose that maybe the Sci-Fi market was declining somewhat, or moving more towards TV, and would continue to do so till Spielberg and Lucas gave it a shot in the arm and took it off in a different direction.
LikeLike
I actually have a soft spot for the really early pre-Quatermass Hammer sci-fi movies such as Spaceways (1953) and Four Sided Triangle (1953), both directed by Terence Fisher. Not cinematic masterpieces perhaps but rather quirky.
LikeLike
I love this one. As a child I was really impressed with the melting effects. Another similar Brit sci-fi from this era is The Trollenberg Terror
LikeLike
Those effects remain pretty good in my opinion and I guess they would have been even more impressive back when the movie was released. I quite like The Trollenberg Terror too, another Jimmy Sangster script.
LikeLike
I tried TROLLENBERG a couple of months just couldn’t get into it, which was disappointing. But maybe just not in the right mood – usually have no issues with Hammer / Tempean from that era, though not a big monster fan overall. Oh well, next time …
LikeLike
Mood plays a (pretty big?) part in viewing at the best of times. I haven’t seen the film in ages myself, but I know I had a good time with it on the last viewing. I think the atmosphere, setting and build up is the key to these kinds of movies as opposed to the often slightly disappointing monster that ultimately makes an appearance. It’s a bit like that brace of Planet Films productions that Terence Fisher did – Island of Terror and Night of the Big Heat – which I think are great fun for everything except their monsters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Must admit, love Fisher though I do, not that keen on those. Am starting to sense a pattern after all 😁
LikeLike
Well, I wouldn’t say they were great movies by any means, but I retain a soft spot for them. Maybe it a mood thing again, or maybe it’s a matter of first catching them at the right time in one’s life. I recall stumbling on Island by chance late on night when I was staying at my Grandma’s and it popped up on the portable TV. Those kinds of things stick in the mind I suppose.
LikeLike
I recently paid a small fortune for the German Blu Ray
TROLLENBERG TERROR thanks to Glen Erickson’s review
and I must say it’s never looked better-a stunning transfer.
Nice to see Colin make a quick diversion from Noir
and Westerns.
I’d rather Losey directed X THE UNKNOWN with Forrest Tucker
in the lead.
Off topic-
I said that I would report on the HanseSound (Germany) Blu Ray
of COLUMN SOUTH and it’s a very nice transfer.
Not as good as their CITY BENEATH THE SEA but still very watchable.
I never saw the DVD which Colin lead me to believe is not very good
There are no subs just a German or English soundtrack
Extras include a photo gallery and several trailers.
HanseSound are also prepping ARIZONA RAIDERS and THE TEXICAN
for future release.
LikeLike
Hi John. Thanks for the feedback on those Blu-rays. Column South is watchable on DVD, but it’s an old master and could look a lot better so it’s good to learn that the Blu-ray is an acceptable one.
LikeLike
Another film we discussed recently was Jack Arnold’s THE GLASS WEB a Universal International film that I’ve never seen. Kino Lorber have announced the 3D version in 2.0 widescreen but that’s on hold right now. I was so keen to see this film I’ve taken a chance on the Elephant,France version which is a fine transfer but in 1.37 and 2D. Edward G was at a low point in his career at that time but his performance is stellar.
Jack Arnold and Universal International seemed to be made for each other their “house style” fitted the director perfectly. THE GLASS WEB I found very enjoyable and Kathleen Hughes is a Femme Fatale to be reckoned with-she more or less steals the show. Great 50’s TV background details-I highly recommend THE GLASS WEB as a thriller that I feel Colin, you will enjoy very much. The Elephant Blu Ray has an English soundtrack with removable French subs (in white & yellow!) and removable English subs.
LikeLike
Again, thanks for the feedback on that BD of The Glass Web. I have seen the film and liked it and indeed featured it here some years ago. Until now, I’ve never had the opportunity to see it in decent shape, so the news you’ve shared is most welcome.
LikeLike
I think what older sci-fi films had over contemporary sci- fi films of today is the mystery, the sense of the unknown. Because space really was the great unknown, and there was a terror about it. The films back then had a sense of threat, of darkness. Its gone now that NASA makes space travel look more mundane (its not mundane, and will always be dangerous, but NASA has to make it look safe in order to get the money from Congress).
For all its faults, I clutch at new films like Ad Astra for its sense of darkness and mystery. Its idea that the void is so vast and the human psyche so fragile that we cannot cope with it and never will. Its something largely lost now in sci fi films that make it comfy and ordinary; no zero-G, sound in space, every planet being Earthlike, we’ve lost all the wonder. Just compare Robert Wise’s The Day the Earth Stood Still with its terrible remake. They are so different its incredible (even if it is depressing regards what it says about films today).
LikeLike
You may have something there. I think there is still a sense of mystery there, but it’s of a different kind, a colder and clinical kind I guess, or less romantic at any rate.
LikeLike
Because space really was the great unknown
In the 50s it really was still unknown. So space was terrifying, but also exciting. While scientists had mostly abandoned things like the “canals on Mars” theory the average person still imagined that life might be found on other planets in the Solar System, maybe even intelligent life.
By the mid 60s people started to accept the reality that we are alone in the Solar System. When people saw close-up images of the Moon and Mars and saw that they were just dead rocks it was a shattering disappointment. It’s not surprising that science fiction started to become cynical and pessimistic. The reality of the Space Age was incredibly disillusioning.
LikeLike
Just a word about Dean Jagger.
He is almost surely the best actor to ever appear in one of these things, medium budget science fiction films.
LikeLike
I liked him in the role and I certainly think he was a very good actor with a long list of strong performances to prove his quality.
LikeLike
You are probably right…….considering look-a-likes Hugh Marlowe and Phil Karlson are who I associate most with in this genre. In my youth, I always thought I was watching the same guy.
LikeLike
You mean Richard Carlson. Yes, he and Marlowe did look quite similar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for setting that straight Colin.
LikeLike
Colin
Nice pick. X the Unknown is one of those under-rated gems that needs to be seen by more folks. I also like the screenplays Sangster did for The Snorkel 1958, and The Man who Could Cheat Death 1959.
A bit of sad news, Piper Laurie has passed at age 91. A 3 time Oscar nominated actress who was always a pleasure to watch.
R.I.P.
Gordon
LikeLike
Sangster wrote some really enjoyable scripts over the years, becoming one of the key “names” at Hammer in the process. I guess his biggest success came with those Clouzot-influenced thrillers and he did perhaps visit that particular well a little too regularly. Nevertheless, his writing was one of Hammer’s strengths.
And yes, that is sad news about the passing of Piper Laurie.
LikeLike
I loved The Snorkel and The Man who Could Cheat Death was excellent as well.
LikeLike
I’d agree on the former. The latter, on the other hand, achieves that unusual feat of being colorfully drab.
LikeLike
She was so superb with Newman in ‘The Hustler’.
LikeLike
I’m now kicking myself I overlooked this film when it was being shown on our Talking Pictures TV channel recently. I will be looking out for a replay.
LikeLike
Well, as you say, the good thing about channels such as TPTV is their rotating schedule, where movies tend to get a rolled out on a fairly regular basis. Can I take it that you have seen the movie at some point in the past though, Jerry?
LikeLike
No never, Colin
LikeLike
Never say never, Jerry.
LikeLike
I suspect I have the same DVD as you (the DD edition?) and re-watched this not so long ago (in January) and had a very good time. Yes, it does lack the big ideas of Quatermass but works just fine as it is. The conceit is daft but is also entertaining. Although Sangster’s scripts tended to run out out of steam after an hour, his construction and placing of climaxes is really sound. I have always assumed Losey called in sick after Jagger’s position on him became clear.
LikeLike
Yes, I have that old DD edition – I think most of my copes of early Hammer productions come via them.
One good thing about movies like this is the brief running time, where even if a script did begin to run out of steam the climax wasn’t far off.
I also thought the Losey situation played out in a similar way, but a quick nose around online as I was cobbling this together suggested there might have been some doubt on that score so i thought I’d mention it in passing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fair enough Colin. The usually very reliable David Caute’s biography of Losey doesn’t even mention X so …
LikeLike
I see. he did begin shooting on the movie though, didn’t he? I guess even so his involvement was minimal so the author just bypassed it.
LikeLike
I think he did all the casting, pre-production, set construction supervision and location scouting (working under the “Joseph Walton” pseudonym) but according to the DVD viewing notes by Marcus Hearn and Jonathan Rigby, he had definitely gone by the time filming began at Beaconsfield Studios, under instructions from US partner Sol Lesser who sided with Jagger (the only star name in the cast after all).
LikeLike
Thanks. I have those liner notes boxed up and not readily accessible so I appreciate your digging your own copy out to confirm that. Rigby and Hearn are pretty thorough and dependable on all matters relating to Hammer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The sci-fi movie that Losey did direct for Hammer, These Are the Damned, is rather good. It would have been interesting to see more sci-fi from Losey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One suspects it would have been exceptionally gloomy …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I think that’s pretty much a given.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For me the golden age of movie sci-fi was from 1968 to around 1977. Just one great sci-fi movie after another, and they were so incredibly varied in content, theme and style.
After Star Wars movie sci-fi was mostly just gee-whizz special effects. With just a handful of worthwhile films. I’d rate Total Recall and the original 1995 anime version of Ghost in the Shell as the last great sci-fi movies.
LikeLike
The original Planet of the Apes fits into that time period and it’s a movie I like a lot. I still much prefer the 50s Sci-Fi boom though. In general, by the time we reached the late 60s and on into the 70s there was a less attractive tone to be discerned where nothing felt as though it was going to end well. Contrast that with the earlier films which had that unique blend of danger, wonder, intelligence and hope. Leap forward to the period you mentioned and, on the whole, there was still danger, but a lot of resignation and not much trace of hope.
LikeLike
That’s a perfectly valid viewpoint and I can’t disagree with it. And I do miss the optimism of the 50s. On the other hand I rather enjoy 70s paranoia.
The depressing thing is that the dire predictions of 1970s “computers will become our masters or they’ll turn on us and destroy us” movies such as Westworld, Demon Seed and Colossus: The Forbin Project now seem certain to come true.
LikeLike
I think that’s at least part of why I don’t regard a lot of the Sci-Fi from that era with the same affection. There are indeed plenty of good films from around that time, thought-provoking and clever stuff in many instances. Still, so many of those films have a downbeat approach or tone that, as with Sci-Fi in general of course, is a reflection of the times in which they were made. I guess there is a shortage of joy in the filmmaking and with the benefit of hindsight it’s not surprising that the genre would soon spin off in a new direction. Conversely, I’d say the small screen Sci-Fi of the late 60s – something like Star Trek in particular – had a very different feel.
LikeLike
I’ve never been much of a Star Trek fan although the original series was at least watchable which is more than can be said for the awful later Star Trek series.
I much prefer UFO, which certainly has a darker tone.
The Invaders is a TV sci-fi series with some paranoid overtones. The excellent 1965 British sci-fi series Undermind has lots of paranoia.
Sci-fi always seems to veer back and forth from gee-whizz “future technology will be awesome” optimism to “we’re all doomed” pessimism. US TV sci-fi of that era tended to be optimistic because the US networks insisted on it, even when writers and producers would have preferred a more grown-up approach.
LikeLike
There’s probably a long article to be had out of a consideration of optimism vs pessimism in what is ultimately an entertainment medium. I think both can coexist, though perhaps not so comfortably in the same production, and there’s evidence of that being the case. However, I feel that too much of one type, especially relentless gloom or darkness, is limiting and finite. Even film noir, which I like so much, ran out of steam or maybe ran out of an audience over time and had to wait for a type of revival some years later. That tends to occur with most genres where a drift towards pessimism sets in – there’s only so far you can go with that and audiences will eventually grow weary.
LikeLike
I agree. Once pessimism crosses the line into nihilism I start to lose interest. That is a problem for me with some 70s movies, in various genres. I find it a particular problem with 70s crime and gangster movies, which for me are mostly unwatchable.
It’s one of the reasons I dislike spaghetti westerns (although I also dislike them because they’re too stridently political).
Maybe I don’t find it a problem with sci-fi because sci-fi isn’t a realist genre. The combination of the cult of realism and the cult of nihilism turns me right off.
LikeLike
That’s true about Sci-Fi being a step closer to fantasy than most genres, although there are and have been examples where it has tried for, shall we say, a more grounded approach.
That said, I think all genres do peak at some stage when they have been following a certain theme or outlook. I would have said it’s unavoidable and it generally leads to the genre reemerging after some time, but on a different tack.
LikeLike
I think most genres flourish for maybe a decade or a decade-and-a-half. Hollywood gothic horror, roughly 1931-1945. Screwball comedy, 1934 to the mid-40s. The golden age of the Hollywood Western, late 40s to around 1962. The spy movie craze of the 60s was pretty much done by the end of that decade. Film noir, say 1941 to mid-50s. The sci-fi boom of the 50s, more or less over by the end of the decade. The glossy Hollywood adventure romance, mid-40s to mid-50s.
Interestingly European genres have a slightly faster turnover. The peplum craze, spaghetti westerns, the giallo and the poliziotteschi all flourished for less than a decade.
Mostly it’s a case of too many movies of the same type made in quick succession. And in all the genres I’ve mentioned you can see signs towards the end that they were becoming exhausted. Too much recycling of the same ideas.
LikeLike
Hammer made a surprising return to sci-fi in 1969 with Moon Zero Two. Which most people hate, but I enjoyed.
LikeLike
Folks
I love 50ès Sci-fi, even the corny ones. Some of the best are from director Jack Arnold, THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN -57, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON-54 and IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE-53. Then there is Fred Sears, EARTH VS THE FLYING SAUCERS-57 and 20 MILLION MILES TO EARTH-57 from Nathan Juran.
I am a bit behind on my UK productions, but I did catch the 6 part 1955 BBC serial QUATERMASS II a few months back. It is up on You-Tube. Gord
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love most 1950s sci-fi, both British and American. The one exception is The Day the Earth Stood Still, which I dislike intensely. It makes me cringe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting to compare the Quatermass TV series and their subsequent cinema adaptations, with regard to both the casting and the pacing of the different versions. I know I prefer the movie versions of all of them. I saw them and became familiar with them first, so they have that advantage for me, but I like the casting of both Donlevy and Keir and the tightened up structure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have you seen the 1979 Quatermass TV mini-series? With John Mills as an ageing Quatermass. A lot of people liked it but personally I thought it was deadly dull.
LikeLike
While I somehow never saw it when it was originally transmitted, I heard good things about it from a lot of people and bought the DVD set years ago. I’ve always enjoyed John Mills as an actor but I can’t say I liked the series.
LikeLike
Excellent review. One of my favorite recent Sci Fi movies is ‘Arrival’. I recommend seeking it out. The wonderful Amy Adams is excellent in it. The movie is tops in my opinion.
LikeLike
That’s a new one for me. I shall look out for it. Thanks.
LikeLike
Chris – Colin
I saw ‘Arrival’ a few months ago and was glad I did. It was not what I had been expecting. Good film that should have done better box-office.
Gord
LikeLike
Yes I agree. I thought it was excellent. Amy Adams (big fan) and Jeremy Renner (fantastic also in the modern Western ‘Wind River) really help make the picture. Very intelligent movie.
LikeLike
I have now been able to view X…THE UNKNOWN for the first time (at last) and found it to be an intelligent storyline, handled well despite obvious budgetary restrictions, and with an interesting cast. Dean Jagger was very good in the lead role while the rest of the cast were British and led by solid character actors Edward Chapman, Leo McKern and William Lucas.
This film hues the path of almost-believability and an unsensational approach that I like a lot. It tended to remind me in some ways of NIGHT OF THE DEMON (1957), another British film with an American male lead. There was a similar feel of dread underneath the action that never goes over the top.
A film I obviously should not have initially dismissed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder if the title creates the expectation of something far more lurid and sensational than is actually the case.
LikeLike
Case in point…….THE BLOB (1958).
LikeLike
Indeed. I guess there’s a fine line to be navigated – the title needs to engage an audience, but there is always the risk of making a movie sound like it’s going to be something entirely different. In the case of the film under discussion here Hammer seemed to be striving for as much mileage as possible from association with the X certificate then in use as a rating. They had gone down that route with their play on the name of the first Quatermass movie and in following up here they were still pressing that point.
LikeLike