It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

A quintet of people have to work together to stay alive and persevere in the wake of a nuclear holocaust that has killed off everyone else on the planet. Writer/director Arch Oboler relates the engrossing story at a steady pace, creates and sustains a properly bleak and sober tone throughout, puts a firm emphasis on interaction between the well-drawn characters over cheap melodrama or heavy-handed moralizing, and ably crafts a strong mood of despair and hopelessness. The fine acting by the capable cast holds the picture together: Susan Douglas as the pregnant, shell-shocked Roseanne Rogers, William Phipps as kindly intellectual Michael, Charles Lampkin as the genial, soft-spoken Charles, James Anderson as arrogant troublemaker Eric, and Earl Lee as polite old gentleman Mr. Barnstaple. Moreover, this movie gains considerable strength and impact from its low-key and unsentimental evenly balanced portrait of a dismal and distressful situation that brings out both the best and worst in humanity. The sharp black and white cinematography by Sid Lubow and Louis Clyde Stoumen provides a stark film noirish look (the shots of empty streets littered with skeletons are especially striking). Henry Russell's moody score does the brooding trick. Worth a watch for fans of end-of-the-world cinema.

A bit overwrought and florid, but very enjoyable. Several reviewers pick on it because they seem to think that the characters are walking around in a totally depressed state throughout the movie. I don't see this at all. In fact, I perceive them as incredibly upbeat and positive about their situation, all things considered. One of the aspects of this film that I enjoy the most is the pure villainy of the bad guy. It's rare nowadays to see such an uncompromising and ungrateful jerk written into a script. He's human and believable, but he has no redeeming qualities at all. Also, he accomplishes this without the aid of technology, secret weapons, or even any sort of clever scheming or evil plans.The cinematography is pretty good, with some startling shots and quite a bit of hand-held camera.Finally, and I simply can't pass on this, the title is numerically correct for the majority of the movie. A couple other reviewers have stated that it is incorrect and I'm not sure if they're numerically challenged or what.

Dismissable as post—apocalyptic goofiness from the 'duck and cover' age, when the Hiroshima memories and the Cold War with the soviets made people think about the nuclear threat and dream about possibilities of survival in a post—nuclear wasteland, FIVE, by Arch Oboler, has chosen the resources of a dramatic poem, resounding with over—the—top rhetoric in the beginning (but quickly reaching a genuinely lyrical level at times, and a dramatic note), over those of the paranoiac thriller, and is, in many ways, a very rewarding melodrama; I think it's a charming and interesting Sci Fi, neat, humane in its fairness, thickly sentimental, unusual and surely better written than the lowbrow post—apocalyptic exploitation, rewarding for the connoisseurs of old genre flicks, I liked the actress (Susan Douglas) and the cinematography, the exciting if conventional diversity of the assembled characters, the attempt at dealing with the harshness, but also a certain mildness at times. FIVE is enjoyable as an attempt to reformulate, in the genre movies' syntax, the sadness, the lyricism, the shock of suddenly finding oneself in a deserted world, it does a bit of psychology, and is an auteur work (I do not know who this Arch Oboler was, but I like his ambition of giving a respectable face to a genre); which doesn't make it less goofy and more Tarkovsky, but nonetheless gives it a peculiar place.Regarding the style, FIVE illustrates the expressionism of the 'duck and cover' ads and of the pacifist propaganda. It is loud, dramatic, sharp, fast, overstated.Anyway, Roseanne's idea of taking the baby with her in her quest and exposing him to the high levels of radiation in the city seems less happy; it also seems strange to me that none of these scriptwriters realizes that with all the engines and generators and machines that will not slow down by themselves and none's around to turn them off, the cities would soon explode, blow, etc.. All the engines and machines that work would need someone to turn them off; otherwise, all kinds of accidents would occur. In the same way, the food will not simply be stored; because this storage would be disturbed to.So, the nuclear blasts would not simply freeze the world, as in a crystal ball. The engines would go on working till they break and produce accidents; the cities would quickly become uninhabitable, and sources of a second wave of catastrophes. In these post—apocalyptic stories, the world seems to freeze, to hibernate, to get into some kind of cryogenic existence, preserved from all further destruction and deterioration. But why? The chaos of the engines would soon follow; all the engines working at the moment of the nuclear blast would continue to work—till random breakdowns and accidents would produce a string of urban destructions. The trains that none would stop, the cars, the power generators, etc..A world suddenly, instantly deserted by all its inhabitants would be like a motor speeding with no driver; who says that motor would quickly slow down and all motion fade? On the contrary —a disaster would soon follow.In these movies, the scriptwriters believe that all engines and motors and machines would simply stop, causing no harm.And if you, fair reader, will ever write a post—apocalyptic story, either for print or screen, take my word of advice, think about all the harm the unstopped engines would produce—and also credit that Romanian Sci Fi fan for having given you the idea.And why not think also about Crusoe, the primeval couple (in fact, 'Charles' says the story of the Genesis), the Flood and, since we live in the age of the TV series, when most of the people feel compelled to watch as many TV rubbish as possible, about LOST?

I thought this was a fascinating and gutsy film made only six years after the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Its almost documentary feel made it most realistic and the script was very intelligently written (per Oboler's radio background). Having toured the structures depicted in the movie that were designed in 1940 by world famous architect Frank Lloyd Wright (those were Wright's actual blueprints and architectural model for the house that appeared in the scene of the office that belonged to "Steven Rogers A.I.A." - American Institute of Architects). A suspenseful little movie that one has to wonder how it would have looked had it been directed by the likes of Hitchcock or Welles.