Watch Riders to the Stars For Free

Captivating movie !

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Even though there are many clichés and stereotypes, this is a classic. There's some "silly science," but nothing that wouldn't reasonably be expected of 1953. The notion of sending an astronaut into space on an Atlas rocket might seem seen unconventional (if not impossible) today, it was a reasonable movie assumption for the time. Don't be put off by the scientific inaccuracies: this is very worthwhile. Watch for familiar figures in the cast! Watch, also, for all the cigarette smoking: what a difference a half- century makes! The final "crash scene" does, in some way, spoil the otherwise scientific accuracy of the film but, what maybe they've discovered Bucky- balls!

I think this was a real good quality 50's era sci-fi from 1954. I don't usually go for the silly monster version of sci-fi so prevalent from the era - although I still like a few for a good laugh. But this one has more sincerity and genuineness to it. It was actually very believable.Yes, I know the special effects are a little cheesy. But I think for the time period they were pretty good. The title screen on IMDb show this as being a color film - but I kept having the impression that this was a black and white film that had been colorized (which I'm usually not a fan of). But I think it was a good decision to have this be color to appreciate the views from space, all the colored blinking lights from the science equipment (I don't think we could call these computers).I thought the footage of the mice in space was a real gem! It cracked me up with their little rubber ball.Anyways, I have always been fascinated with space travel, and I'm sure the audiences from the 50's must have been mesmerized with the premise of man going to space. I don't think the real space race with the Soviets had heated up yet (Sputnik didn't launch until 1957), but I'm sure it was on people's minds.I liked the casting, especially Herbert Marshall. He makes the perfect egghead scientist type. I love his voice, but who doesn't. I thought Richard Carlson who played Lockwood and also directed, did a great job - especially when he freaks out after Gordon explodes in space and he completely loses it. I wasn't a big fan of the female lead. She wasn't very appealing, but I guess it was important to cast someone not too attractive so as to be able to believe her in a scientist-type role.Overall, I think this was a decent picture with good foresight into the real space race for which our country was on the precipice.

Inspired by "Amazon Women on the Moon", we TIVO'ed this classic on 1/1/2007. This film is a very typical 50's science fiction movie. Despite ignoring such basic facts as the differences between a Meteor, Meteorite and a Meteoroid (see Wikipedia) the film claims to have had scientific advice from Maxwell Smith, the Associate Producer in Charge of Scientific Research. It is obvious that they either ignored his advice or he was not very good at research.The film draws you in right away with a hilarious random jaunt through the desert on jeeps, with the cargo in the cart bouncing around nearly falling out a few times. The "scientific" facts make no sense, even for the 50's. The basic premise is that our steel is somehow changed on a "molecular" scale (they mean atomic) and becomes brittle when bombarded by cosmic radiation - it even shatters with slight force when returned to earth. Why would anyone build a rocket out of thick steel anyway? The goal is to capture one of these meteoroids to discover how they can withstand the cosmic radiation without turning brittle. When the meteoroids are flying through space, they hurl in a random, almost sinusoidal, path and seem to change speed (around 18000 mph), yet somehow they manage to capture one. I won't tell you what it was protected with, but it may have been inspired by DeBeers.Every one of the 12 astronaut candidates is an unmarried educated white male. The only main female character in the film is there for the weak romantic sub-plot.Smoking seems to be a central important theme to the movie. We thought that perhaps big tobacco paid big money to promote their products (a la "I Love Lucy") as the actors are trying their best to look suave while lighting up (seemed like every scene). This theory came into question when one of the astronaut candidates was rejected because he was a chain smoker who paced too much. This would be an advantage in the eyes of Phillip Morris - everyone should do this.One of the others reviewers has inspired us to record "Destination Moon", perhaps the original fodder for "Amazon...".

The movie was one of my favorites when I was gowing up. I was lucky enough to read the paperback book when it came out, & I was very excited when I heard there would be a movie. It is a classic in its way, showing the selection process for what is virtually an impossible task( Space travel depends on onbtaining a material found only in meteorites, so we must travel in space to get it so we can then travel in space...) There is the usual love-interest, but the most interesting character in the book/movie is played by Richard Carlson, as a logical detached scientist, who is lost in a kind of "Rapture of the Deep" in reaction to the reality of, and the sheer beauty of the stars. If you can find this movie --get it!!