Tue 15 Mar 2016
A Movie Review by Jonathan Lewis: MASTER OF THE WORLD (1961).
Posted by Steve under Reviews , Science Fiction & Fantasy[7] Comments
MASTER OF THE WORLD. American International Pictures, 1961. Vincent Price, Charles Bronson, Henry Hull, Mary Webster, David Frankham. Screenplay: Richard Matheson, based on the novels Robur, the Conqueror and Master of the World by Jules Verne. Director: William Witney.
For a film directed by serial and B-film maestro William Witney, Master of the World, the cinematic adaptation of two Jules Verne works, is a relatively tame, if not occasionally sedate, affair. There’s some action, to be sure. But it’s really not all that frenetic or fun. Instead, the viewer has to make do with a perfectly adequate script by Richard Matheson and some enjoyable scenery chewing from Vincent Price and some solid, if not particularly memorable, acting from Charles Bronson.
Price portrays Robur, a visionary genius and diabolical madman determined to wage war on the very concept of warfare itself. His plan is to traverse the globe in the Albatross, an airship straight out of the imagination of late nineteenth-century fiction, and bomb the heck out of the world’s armies. Along the way, he ends up capturing U.S. government agent Strock (Bronson) and three of Stock’s civilian companions with personalities as exciting as cardboard.
There’s a lot of dialogue, some of it incredibly tedious, about the morality of destroying the Albatross in order to thwart Robur’s designs. Likewise, the viewer is subject to similar speechifying from Robur. Fortunately, Price is such a unique screen presence that he makes the movie far more enjoyable than it would have been had another actor been cast in the role.
Master of the World isn’t a total loss. There are some occasionally lighthearted moments and Price seems to be thoroughly enjoying himself. It’s all just rather dated, I suppose. Perhaps it’s a movie than can only really be enjoyed on the big screen on a rainy Saturday afternoon where it’s escapist fun soon forgotten after leaving the theater.
March 16th, 2016 at 4:35 am
“Sedate” is an apt word indeed, and as you mentioned, a surprising/disappointing adjective to apply to a film with names like Witney, Price and AIP attached to it.
March 16th, 2016 at 10:32 am
Yes, I was expecting a lot better, too.
March 16th, 2016 at 11:36 am
I’ve always enjoyed watching this, but I’ve read the original books as well. Much of Verne’s philosophy (if you want to call it that) is represented in the film.
March 16th, 2016 at 1:30 pm
Heck, “Master of the World”? I just like to be master of my household for an evening.
March 16th, 2016 at 4:27 pm
It may be truer to Verne in the philosophical bent than any of the major films, but it does sacrifice a bit of action and it doesn’t reflect the changes in Verne’s world view between the relatively benign ROBUR THE CONQUERER and MASTER OF THE WORLD, which seems to be about a completely different character.
There is some striking imagery in the book of the ship hiding in a volcanic crater that is sacrificed in the film and too much stock footage is used in too many key scenes.
And while he is good, the presence of Charles Bronson as the hero skewers the film for me since he is so much more intense than anyone else in the film even the scenery chewing of Vincent Price. The untapped potential of a Bronson protagonist to drive this films intensity leaves it a bit underwhelming.
And yet it is very faithful to Verne and Price has good moments. I think however that trying to combine both ROBUR and MASTER in the same film to some extent is a mistake because the two books have little in common beyond flying machines and the title character’s name. The Robur of the first book is an airborne Nemo, the Robur of MASTER is a James Bond villain written by an older and much darker Jules Verne.
March 16th, 2016 at 5:32 pm
A friend of mine is working on a new translation of Robur that should replace all previous translations.
March 17th, 2016 at 2:11 am
It’s a wonderfully cheap production. If I remember correctly, it uses huge amounts of stock footage (a shot of Victorian London seems to have Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre in plain view!) That said, I’ve always found it rather endearing, and you get the feeling that if the whole thing were more expensively mounted it might be a much better film. Not great, but better.