User Reviews

I watched this film on DVD (in color with the original widescreen aspect ratio, a double-bill with "World Without End") with no expectations, not having seen it before. The movie started out great, with some amazingly beautiful footage of the delta-wing Avro Vulcan bomber. Then there was some excellent footage of another British jet plane, a small fighter which I believe (but am not sure) was a Folland Midge. The first views of the "Stardust" spaceship were really cool. And unlike many reviewers, I didn't mind the "talkiness" of the screenplay--I thought it gave the characters needed depth. So far, so good. But then things started falling apart, science-wise.

Many of the scientific explanations were standard 1950s sci-fi B-movie gobbledygook--for example, that the space-plane would travel "beyond gravity" when it was merely going into orbit. The whole "metallic attraction" explanation for the bomb sticking to the end of the spaceship was nonsense, but I guess they needed some sort of plot device to endanger the crew. What really killed it for me was the rocket-exhaust effect. The exhaust floated about like cigarette smoke in a light breeze, nothing like actual rocket plumes. (I must believe that a little extra effort on the part of the FX crew could have given a much more believable rocket exhaust.) I really liked the observation bubbles on each side of the spacecraft, though--quite a nice touch.

I still recommend this film for sci-fi and aviation buffs, if only for the Vulcan footage at the beginning.

The Brits in the 50s seemed to have a distinctly different idea of proper pacing for their movies compared to American output from the same period.(I think that's still true today). Most of the time, this makes British science fiction a refreshing change of pace (for example, in "World Without End".) Unfortunately, other times they somehow lose control of the rhythms and tempo of the screen play and the results slide into dullness and boredom now matter how good the actors are and no matter how hard they try (like "Immediate Disaster").

"Satellite In the Sky" falls into the "dull" category, at least for my taste.

There are some very nice touches here, of course. Most of the sets look great, costumes and props have weight and appeal, and most of the special effects are well conceived and executed (if you can overlook the "rocket exhaust" from the model that drifts upwards in a thoroughly illusion dispelling way.). And I liked most of the cast on principle - it was especially interesting to see "Miss Moneypenny" from the Bond Series here in a prominent pre-Bond role. And there's even a suitably moralistic plot complication in which a supposedly peaceful flight of exploration and adventure turns out to be financed by the military, who want to drop a super-bomb out in(for "test purposes".) But the screenplay doesn't have any real forward momentum, and there are too many scenes of characters going on and on about various issues without any tension, good blocking, or even plot advancement. People talk and talk and talk, but there's no real character development either - nothing anybody says will surprise you. And just when the final crisis is resolved and the super-bomb goes off, and you think the characters will reunite in a final scene to resolve their issues and relationships and settle various lingering threads, the movie just stops. "BANG", "The End".

Certainly an interesting artifact of 50's science fiction...I can't help but think this is what a movie based on a Robert Heinlein story would be like if he'd been bowdlerized by the Editorial board of the Ladies Home Journal.

This is one of those 1950's serious science fiction space travel extravaganzas in color, but one of the only British ones. They predicted a lot of things right, got a few things wrong (we still have not militarized space, thank goodness), but still it is amazing that this film was made in 1956, even prior to Sputnik going up.

The model work of the spaceship/rocket is top notch for 1956, even if it doesn't fool one living soul in 2013.

We're all here for the action stuff about test flights and launching the rocket, and the (inevitable) Crisis In Outer Space (tm) that all serious science fiction efforts seem to gravitate (har har) toward.

We're here less so for the political back story, machinations and intrigue, and philosophical battle about the value of taking risks and the sense of discovery that science provides contrasted with all those other issues that require money down here on li'l old Earth, which goes on between the Space Cadet commander and the Spunky Female Reporter (tm also). Did women have ANY profession other than reporter in a movie made prior to 1967? And we're definitely not here for the limp attempts at delving into some of the characters' love lives.

But this is entertaining for its time. There are some slow bits, true, but ultimately they do not forget about what we are all there to see, and we get back to glamour shots of the spaceship eventually.

If you're a fan of 1950's science fiction, and you haven't seen it, you could do a lot worse than Satellite in the Sky.

As mentioned by others, the early sci-fi movies seem to have the idea that when you go up a bit you leave the Earth's gravity field. No. What about the Moon? Isn't it held by our gravity? Do the tides just appear by themselves? Rider to the Stars (1954) also had that gravity concept. These movies confuse a lack of gravity with an orbit where you can go 18,000 mph just outside the Earth's atmosphere. You are falling and you miss the Earth. Why do the astronauts float in the Space Shuttle? There is no gravity, all the kids say. The other issue is the statement made in the movie that outside the atmosphere of the Earth magnetic forces are much stronger. It may be true that a magnetic force is attenuated by something placed between 2 magnets. Even a piece of cardboard should reduce it a bit, and air might reduce it a tiny bit, but I never heard of magnetic forces increase much in a vacuum. The writers seem to get confused. So what if 2 guys grabbed the bomb, used the jet packs to push it away, and then zipped back to the ship. A small poof of the rocket motor should get the ship further away. They seemed to try to push the bomb once but it drifted slowly back. They could have a rope attached to themselves and the ship if necessary. The bomb would have to be really highly magnetized for it to act like it did. The explanation was that the ship is really big compared to the bomb. I can't believe that in 9 hours they could not have come up with a simple plan - steer bomb a distance away, zip back, use low thrust to get the ship further away, then pedal to the metal. The last point - the bomb guy freaked out when they were going up. He appeared to be middle aged, not in great shape, and never had the slightest training or any kind of medical clearance.

This film did not successfully capture the early years of aviation exploration, dealing more with the battle of the sexes, and not presenting its female characters in a positive light outside the mention of one of the astronauts' dead wives, a marriage he claimed was very happy. Like other science fiction movies of the time, it indicated that if a man chooses a career as a researcher, it's best to remain single because it will dominate your time and your wife will feel very neglected and complain endlessly about it. That's the case for one of the astronauts, and all of a sudden when she's with another man, she learns that the spaceship he's on is in danger of exploding and all of a sudden changes her tune. However, she's a supporting character in a minor way, only in a few scenes and not giving enough material to establish her character. That can't be said for the role that Lois Maxwell plays, an aggressive reporter who ends up stowing away on the ship and should have been put in solitary confinement for the way she interferes.

When the character Maxwell plays first appears, she's very pushy, demanding to see the space ship that Kieron Moore has helped develop rocket into space. Of course, there's a reason behind that which is supposed to make you like her a bit more, but it takes a while for that to come out and after being discovered hiding, doesn't endear herself at all to the crew until she offers to make coffee and sandwiches. Putting all of this human relationship nonsense behind, the film then focuses on the fact that the bomb that is attached to the spaceship, not ready to detonate, all of a sudden is in danger of exploding. The astronauts face the fact that they may end up being blown into bits and floating around in the universe forever. By this time, Maxwell has lightened up a bit, but it's out of character for her, and when a romance begins to bloom between her and Moore, my eyes were rolling so much that I could have watched the rest of the film from out of my ears. Still, it's handsomely filmed in color and flows a lot better than some of the other space science fiction related films of the time. Definitely flawed though, and certainly not a progressive answer to gender issues of the day.

A courageous crew led by the rugged and valiant Commander Michael Haydon (an excellent performance by Kieron Moore) guide a stratospheric jet rocket ship on the first space flight; their mission is the first outer space detonation of a tritonium bomb, but alas things go awry and the men find themselves in great peril. Director Paul Dickson, working from a bright and thoughtful script by John Mather, J.T. McIntosh, and Edith Dell, relates the absorbing story at a steady pace, puts a welcome and refreshing emphasis on the engaging characters during the opening half of the picture, and develops a reasonable amount of suspense in the second part of the movie. Moreover, there's uniformly sound and sincere acting from solid cast: Moore makes for a properly strong and stalwart hero, the lovely Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny in the James Bond films) delivers a winningly tart portrayal of snoopy reporter Kim Hamilton (she stows away on the ship), plus there are fine supporting turns by Donald Wolfit as the austere Professor Merrity, Bryan Forbes as the eager Jimmy Wheeler, Jimmy Hanley as the cheery Larry Noble, Barry Keegan as the dour, hardy "Lefty" Blake, Thea Gregory as Larry's snippy, fed-up wife Barbara, and Shirley Lawrence as Jimmy's sweet, cute girlfriend Ellen. The polished widescreen color cinematography by Georges Perinal and James Wilson makes artful occasional use of fades and dissolves while the stirring, majestic score by Albert Elms hits the spirited spot. The special effects are merely passable at best. An intelligent and entertaining little winner.

For 1956, a remarkable effort and well done. I loved the beginning with the footage of the Avro Vulcan with the patriotic music score. Clearly, the Producers were quite proud of what Britain had achieved. It was a beautiful airplane. The story is about what one would expect during the Cold War, a bomb is involved. The special effects of the spacecraft, while amusing in this day, were likely quite sophisticated for the time. Imaginative and logical. The cast contains the irrepressible Donald Wolfit at his tyrannical best. How I wish he would have survived to make more pictures. Kieron Moore is at his patriotic best. Alongside Richard Todd, Britain is lucky to have men like these at their disposal in service. Donald Wolf is his usual affable self. Women, of course, are kept to their station. The requisite Spitfire in the person of Lois Maxwell, provides a welcome relief to the marital problems of the crew. The movie is of interest as an Anthropological study of mid-century Britain. Their tools, manners and mores.