Expected more

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

A plodding adaptation of the classic Jules Verne novel which takes a slow-moving and talky route to the adventure story. The first half of the film is taken up of mere plot exposition and when the rocket EVENTUALLY takes off, another half hour is just taken up of dialogue and battles of wills between the men on board. It's clear that money was spending on giving the movie an A-list cast, so unfortunately none is left for special effects of any kind. 95% of the rocket-time is spent in cheap-looking interior sets. Being based on a Verne story, the film's plot is quite interesting and accessible for fans of sci-fi from the period, but this is so deadly serious and lacking in incident its tough to watch.The best "action" the film has to offer is a couple of guys nearly getting fried in a shower of electric sparks. Elsewhere, it's more small talk and dated romance between the two young leads which culminates in one of the most disappointing let-downs of an anti climax: Cotton and Sanders land on the moon (off screen) and there the story ends. It let me thinking "Huh?". Joseph Cotten takes the lead as the inventor-turned-astronaut and puts in a convincing performance, but he's not in the least bit charismatic as such a role should be. The always good-value George Sanders also has an interesting role as the stubborn colleague who misguidedly sabotages the mission and places the lives of all on board in danger. Also appearing are Debra Paget as the unconvincingly blonde-haired love interest and Henry Daniell (a baddie in the Rathbone Holmes series) in a bit part as a stuffy academic type.Despite the appearances of such notable actors, you could hardly say that this movie contains any outstanding performances - instead everyone is more workmanlike. A distinctly uninspiring and uninteresting piece of science fiction cinema, totally lacking in excitement in every area.

This movie is currently being broadcast on TCM. It looks as though it is barely worth watching. The biggest tragedy of this movie is that they recycled the "electronic tonalities" of Bebe and Louis Barron from the superb "Forbidden Planet", one of the greatest science fiction movies of all time and perhaps my favorite movie, ever. Certainly I am a bit prejudiced, but I am appalled by the the sound effects piracy. The Barrons created a whole new sound for Forbidden Planet and were unable to say "Electronic Music by Louis and Bebe Barron" due to their not being members of the Musician's Union. They settled for "Electronics Tonality....". In any case, it is sad that the movie had to pirate the sounds from the Barrons (perhaps legally) to ratchet up the bona fides of this ridiculous movie....pjcaver

Something about this movie just screams "low budget". And it's not merely the lack of fancy special effects or the soundstage-bound nature of what is supposed to be a sci-fi/adventure film. It's mostly the disjointed feel of the scenes, the amateurish editing and the poor pacing. Dullsville.The acting doesn't help, since it doesn't look like they're trying at all - well, maybe George Sanders, as much as he can with an underwritten part, and Henry Daniell has a spark of life that makes him stand out - but if I hadn't seen Joseph Cotten before, I'd never suspect him of being a competent actor, judging by this performance. Tired and uninspired. I never have seen Debra Paget in anything else, so I'm going to have to say...not much of an actress.She'd have to be *terrific* to make something of the awful dialogue she's given. The love scenes are laughable. The movie's pretty sexist too...with a condescending remark about including women in future space travels...to provide hope (eh?) and prepare the meals (hey!).The characters' motivations are unclear, plot holes and inconsistencies make for a weak script and hurts this movie far more than the lack of budget required to take us sightseeing on the Moon... but I suppose other bad scripts with bland acting, have been saved by cool visuals, and this one might've been too.The late great producer, Irving Thalberg, once said he had no desire to take credit and splash his name all over his films (very commendable modesty), and those were some of the greatest movies ever made. His name became well-known anyway, on the strength of his work and admiration of his peers. When I watched the opening credits of far-from-great "From The Earth To The Moon", I couldn't help noticing the name of the producer...who I've never heard of...kept popping up repeatedly. You can draw your own conclusions.

To bad many of the comments here seem to be from jaded action film viewers. They can't seem to appreciate this films many merits including the fact it's a showcase for Cotton's and Sander's enormous talents. Talents to rarely used after their heydays in Hollywood. They both do a marvelous job here, especially Cotton. Yeah, compared to the action packed plot less junk we have today this may seem "slow" in comparison. But there is much more to this film then the gun fights, explosions, and "cool" space battles people seem to require these days. The colorful sets and the acting are a joy to see. And if you look just below the surface you'll find this a refreshing variation on the typical "horrors of atomic energy" films so popular in the 50s.If you have an open mind and love sci-fi films that dare to be different for their time, you should enjoy this.