World Without End (1956)

"We are a peaceful people. We are sick of weapons and war.", 4 January 2009

I've been struggling to write a plot synopsis of World Without End and finally decided to take a look at what was posted on IMDb. The posted synopsis from D.A. Kellough is much better than anything I've been able to come up with – "Four astronauts returning from mankind's first mission to Mars enter a time warp and crash on a 26th Century Earth devastated by atomic war. Our heroes meet with hideous mutant cavemen, giant spiders, love-struck beauties in short dresses, and jealous old geezers in sparkly skullcaps as they struggle to save humanity and build a new world." That sums it all up rather nicely.

At first glance, World Without End might seem like any number of the mass produced sci-fi clones that came out in the 50s. And in some ways, you'd be right. The poorly done rocket shots, the bizarre notion of having guns and hatchets on board a spacecraft, and the giant spider attacks are straight out of the 1950s Sci-Fi How To Guide. But for whatever reason, World Without End is more enjoyable than many of its brethren. The cast that features Hugh Marlowe and Rod Taylor is more than capable. The interesting script and the snappy direction of Edward Bernds help to create a nicely paced film with few dead spots. Even the more romantic, schmaltzy scenes don't drag the film down like in other sci-fi movies of the period. All of the "creatures" from Earth's future are adequately explained and (mostly) believable. And the film has a sense of fun about it that I enjoyed. I've got no problem recommending World Without End to fans of 50s sci-fi cinema.

I said that things were adequately explained. Well, for the most part that's true. One thing that's not is the difference between the men and women of Earth's future. The men are pasty, old, bloodless (that's what one of the characters from Earth's past call them) beings without a spark for life. The women, in contrast, are young and beautiful creatures with a need to live and to be loved. Why the difference? It's not really a weakness of the film, just something that nagged at me as I watched the movie.

7/10