Scott LeBrun Very minor B grade sci-fi from Columbia Pictures tells the story of 12 men and women from around the globe, selected to be astronauts on a mission to the moon based on their area of expertise. After a fair bit of exploring (and some really stupid behaviour), they discover that an alien intelligence exists on the moon. The aliens, naturally, order the meddling humans to get the hell out, but the problems for planet Earth don't end after our heroes leave."12 to the Moon" may well be yet another example of the budget size limiting any ambitions on the filmmakers' part. As it is, it's a talky, dull, mostly uneventful picture. David Bradley's direction is flat and he fails to achieve any real dramatic tension. The script doesn't appear to have been that well thought out, which is surprising considering that the writer is DeWitt Bodeen of "Cat People" fame. The scenario fails to offer much surprise, or even much entertainment, although the movie is not without atmosphere. The one moment that comes closest to working is when one of the astronauts is sucked beneath the surface of the moon.The characters are predictable (the Russian team member is an arrogant prick), and the performances are, to put it charitably, pretty underwhelming right across the board. Ken Clark ("Attack of the Giant Leeches") is our jut jawed hero, Captain John Anderson. Tom Conway, co-star of three Val Lewton productions (including the aforementioned "Cat People") is the somewhat amusing Russian, John Wengraf ("The Return of Dracula") is the guilt ridden German, and lovely Anna-Lisa is the Swede. Francis X. Bushman wastes his time making a special guest appearance as the guy delivering the exposition at the outset.Dedicated sci-fi buffs might find some value here, but overall this is quite forgettable.Four out of 10.

drystyx This is entertainment. It tells a story. The science is off, but that's because it is science fiction. There really has never been a film which had "great" science, and even fewer famous science fiction writers really gave us great science, or entertainment for that matter.This is about a united world expedition to the Moon, meaning 12 people of various nationalities with different qualifications.The film is well directed, following the story in a logical progression. While the actions aren't exactly understandable, they are coherent in the progression of the plot. The story is told. And the subplots meld well together.The atmosphere is what really works here. We get the isolated feeling of space travel. A big budget isn't needed, and indeed a film like this keeps a person's interest perked because of looking basic.This is because the film of the Golden Age of Hollywood, which pretty well ended in the sixties, were interesting in the look and technique. Directors knew how to stage a play. With a very few exceptions, modern science fiction puts people to sleep.Is the film cheesy? Yes. But it is deservedly so. It does entertain. It doesn't throw a stupid looking video arcade look at you, the sort of look that merely annoys you. This film astounds you with the basics.This is an exciting film. True entertainment.

Wizard-8 I had wanted to see "12 To The Moon" for a long time ever since I came across a review of it in the Leonard Maltin movie guide. The review gave the book's lowest rating (BOMB), but it also said it was "an ambitious failure." That description intrigued me, so when the movie was recently broadcast on Turner Classic Movies, I watched it.The movie is more progressive-thinking than other sci-fi movies of the time when it comes to casting, casting an international crew including two minorities (and two females.) However, when the script comes to making each crew member an individual, it pretty much fails. There is very little effort made into making each crew member stand out in his or her own way. Also, some of the character actions are pretty laughable. Are we really to believe that the linguist on the crew could read alien script immediately on observing it? The movie also fails in other areas. While the sets constructed that depict various parts of the surface of the moon aren't bad, the rest of the production values are both dated and shabby. The rocket has a COMPASS that is consulted during the flight to and from the moon! The astronauts, walking on the moon, are wearing lace boots and gloves that aren't connected to the rest of the space suit! On the flight to the moon, we see several times stars in the background shining through the near-transparent rocket as it moves from one corner of the screen to the other. (Actually, I think it's the same special effects shot repeated all those times.) To be fair, the first two-thirds of the movie were mildly intriguing, making me wonder what the space crew would find and what would happen to them. But the last third of the movie is tiredly predictable since you have seen this stuff in countless other movies before. This limited intrigue and the few other decent bits of the movie aren't enough to save the movie, as you might have guessed. You can easily skip this movie without thinking you're missing something.

bobabaya OK, let's get the obvious out of the way. The writers had no clue about scientific principles, especially space science. Even in 1960, we already knew about the lifeless moon (it had been years since we abandoned the notion of little green men from Mars).But the social implications were fascinating to me. The international crew of the ship was quite impressive, especially in the midst of the cold war.The inclusion of women, Asians, and even an African American man that avoided stereotyping was admirable. Talking about racism, the issues of Israel as a country, and other issues that are just as relevant today was outstanding.So as a movie, lousy, but the message, outstanding!