What do we have here? Another one of those old adventure movies loosely based on a much better, more famous novel that would play on TV during a sleepy Sunday afternoon. You all know the type of movies I mean, the ones that you can never quite recall if you've actually seen, or seen the whole way through (before falling asleep or losing interest).
One of many many movie adaptations of Jules Verne's fantastical adventure stories. Unfortunately I haven't read the original book so I don't really know how faithful this movie is to the original source material, but I doubt it's too close. Plot wise its a very simple affair. The year is 1862, England, and flying a manned balloon is the height of technical achievements. Its inventor, Professor Fergusson, intends to use the balloon to explore East Africa (an unknown mystery at the time), but requires funding. Upon losing possible funding from the Royal Geographical Society, Fergusson luckily manages to secure the money from a rich American publisher on one condition, he takes his young nephew.
Before the professor can start out on his quest he is summoned by the British Prime Minister. The PM wants the Professor to use his balloon to beat a convoy of slave traders to a specific spot in West Africa and stop them from staking a claim to the territory. The professor agrees and believes he can achieve this in 5 weeks (the name of the story!!). So yes, this story showcases the British Empire at a time when they had stopped the slavery trade and were now fighting others still carrying it out (something many folks tend to forget or ignore).
I think the first thing that hit me with this movie was how obviously hokey and poor it was going to be. Straight from the outset pretty much every scene was either obviously on a set, probably in California somewhere, or on location, probably in California somewhere. Obviously most shots within the balloon's gondola were filmed in front of rear screen projections, which is fine and to be expected. But everything else was blatantly shot on obvious sets with extras all heavily made up to look African. Without sounding too whiny, these old flicks do often look ridiculous with scenes set in various countries, and the background extras are clearly White folk (probably Americans working for the studios) made up to look like locals.
The actual balloon is a nice-looking prop and design. The gondola was clearly made to look more fanciful and extravagant for the adventure, unless it's based on the original story of course. Kinda reminded me of the huge dirigible balloon from Disney's 'The Island at the Top of the World'. From a distance it looked pretty epic, but up close it actually looked very cheap and factory-made as it were. The painted decor on the sides looked especially cheap, like a tacky fairground ride. There are clearly models of the balloon used throughout that work relatively well. They are obvious of course but they still look good, quite charming. Although it did amuse me that the seven people who end up travelling in the balloon all manage to live in it for the 5 weeks, considering the gondola only seems to have one living space which houses the large pressure gauge mechanism.
The movie is chock full of stock footage from various locations in Africa and lots of wildlife as the balloon makes its journey across the wilderness. Again things like this are to be expected as this isn't, or wasn't, a massive epic or anything. But I think the one thing that really stands out as being somewhat disappointing is the obvious lack of respect given to the various cultures we see, and how horribly fake it all looks (those sets!). Again, I'm trying not to come across like a far-left activist here, but some of these older flicks really do come across as a bit awkward or cringeworthy in these aspects. The blatant sexism towards the ladies is also somewhat embarrassing at times to be honest. But hey, you expect things like this for a movie like this, it is what it is. Some older movies could get away with it, others fall flat on their arse.
The cast doesn't really save this feature either I'm afraid. I think only Cedric Hardwicke as the professor and Richard Haydn as Sir Henry Vining give the movie any real clout with their performances. The rest of the cast are a mish-mash of various people who were obviously all the rage at the time. You've got a Cliff Richard lookalike in Fabian, for the girls. Barbara Luna awkwardly plays a Middle Eastern slave girl, for the men. Red Buttons is there for comedic tomfoolery (and fails). And in a horrible casting decision (not his only one), Peter Lorre plays a Middle Eastern slave trader! Yikes! The crew also have a chimp join them, because they needed more silliness?
The finale is slightly more exciting than the bulk of the movie as the crew catch up to the slave traders and battle them. Nothing to write home about but there is some nice model work again. A touch of violence with the death of the nasty main slave trader ringleader. In the end everything ends on a big happy note and everyone lives happily ever after, as expected. A pretty substandard feature I'm afraid, not worthy of its source material. Everything just feels cheap, fake, and basic with little budget. I can't even think of a single shot or sequence that stood out truth be told, not even a single outstanding model shot. All very much a let down, wasted potential.
4/10
