Scott LeBrun Writer / producer / director Arch Oboler conceived this landmark, meagerly budgeted post- apocalypse drama, one of the very earliest of its kind. It brings together five strangers: a poet & philosopher named Michael (William Phipps), a young pregnant woman named Roseanne (Susan Douglas Rubes), a black man named Charles (Charles Lampkin), a bank clerk named Mr. Barnstaple (Earl Lee), and a mountain climber named Eric (James Anderson). After the bombs decimate much of American life, these five people find each other, and spend time at an isolated cliff side house (Obolers' real life, Frank Lloyd Wright-designed home). Various personality conflicts form the basis for the plot as these people struggle to survive, debate methodology, and air grievances.Also utilizing a poem dubbed "Creation" by James Weldon Johnson, Oboler tries his hardest to create something fairly profound. Stark b & w photography by Sid Lubow and Louis Clyde Stoumen is an asset, and the tale is enacted with sensitivity by its well chosen cast of actors who were, at the time, relative unknowns. The biggest sparks fly when Eric is revealed as a racist, and also somebody who will question things and be certain that there have to be other "immune" survivors living out there somewhere. On the other hand, Michael isn't sure that the cities will be safe. Roseanne is understandably distraught not knowing the fate of her husband.As one can imagine, this is a pretty intimate story, and it attempts to show how human flaws can still manifest themselves under extreme circumstances. It's at its most chilling when showing how truly alone our characters seem to be, with shots of forlorn streets and buildings and skeletons that are the grim reminders of the devastation wrought by the atomic explosions."Five" earns points for good intentions and ambitions, and it stands in contrast to more action-oriented giant monster features of the Atomic Age.Seven out of 10.

Woodyanders A quintet of people have to work together to stay alive and persevere in the wake of a nuclear holocaust that has killed off everyone else on the planet. Writer/director Arch Oboler relates the engrossing story at a steady pace, creates and sustains a properly bleak and sober tone throughout, puts a firm emphasis on interaction between the well-drawn characters over cheap melodrama or heavy-handed moralizing, and ably crafts a strong mood of despair and hopelessness. The fine acting by the capable cast holds the picture together: Susan Douglas as the pregnant, shell-shocked Roseanne Rogers, William Phipps as kindly intellectual Michael, Charles Lampkin as the genial, soft-spoken Charles, James Anderson as arrogant troublemaker Eric, and Earl Lee as polite old gentleman Mr. Barnstaple. Moreover, this movie gains considerable strength and impact from its low-key and unsentimental evenly balanced portrait of a dismal and distressful situation that brings out both the best and worst in humanity. The sharp black and white cinematography by Sid Lubow and Louis Clyde Stoumen provides a stark film noirish look (the shots of empty streets littered with skeletons are especially striking). Henry Russell's moody score does the brooding trick. Worth a watch for fans of end-of-the-world cinema.

MartinHafer The plot to "Five" is very, very, very familiar. Due to the nuclear age and natural fears of annihilation, Hollywood made a ton of apocalyptic films where a very, very small group of survivors somehow survived. Just off the top of my head, I can think of many films like "The World, The Flesh and The Devil", "The Last Woman on Earth", "The Last Man on Earth", "Robot Monster" and "Omega Man"--and I know there are many more. So, seeing "Five" sure gives me a big sense of déjà vu---so it's certainly not original--though I'll admit that it did come relatively early among these films.So, if there are so many films like this one, and I assume you DON'T want to see them all, is "Five" one you should bother with or should you see some of the others instead? Well, my vote would be on the latter for one HUGE reason. "Five" is among the talkiest of all these movies. So often, nothing really happens and the people just talk and talk and talk. And so it never is exciting or weird like "Omega Man" or as profound as "The World The Flesh and The Devil" because, although there could be a good biracial sexual aspect to the film, it never occurs. The black man in "Five" is so nice that any sexual tension between him and the only woman (who is white) doesn't exist--though there is a one-dimensional racist among them. In fact, this guy is SO one-dimensional that he really seemed more like a plot device than anything else. "Five" is not a terrible film but it's just not all that good. My advice is watch it if you have nothing better to do or just hold out and find another similar film that is a bit better--such as "Omega Man" and "The World The Flesh and The Devil". But do NOT watch "Robot Monster" unless you are a serious glutton for punishment or are a confirmed masochist!Always the one to look for mistakes, I noticed that some of the skeletons of dead people used in the film were clearly lab specimens--complete with springs holding the bones in the hand together! This is not an uncommon mistake and I've seen much worse examples in other films.

dougdoepke TMC should be saluted for reviving this seldom seen film from 1950. I hadn't seen it in many years since it was never a staple of the Late Show. That's not surprising since Five features a no-name cast on a topic bound to depress even Disneyland-- nuclear annihilation. I did see the movie as a boy on initial release and it made a lasting impression. I expect that sort of impact was Oboler's purpose in writing, directing, and producing the project.Consider the movie's time period. In 1949, the Soviets tested their first nuclear device, meaning that the US no longer had a monopoly and-- given the emerging Cold War -- nuclear war became a real possibility for the first time. But such a conflict would be nothing like the wars preceding the atomic age in scope, killing power, or aftermath. Likely, this was the alarm that Oboler was hoping to sound to a complaisant American public coming off the great victories of WWII. The people of that period, however, were looking forward to a refrigerator, washing machine and a good job, and the last thing they wanted to be reminded of was a newer and more apocalyptic world war. The fact that Five was obviously made on a shoestring speaks volumes, I think, as to how Hollywood viewed the subject matter. And though movie sci-fi was overrun with nuclear mutants for the remainder of the decade, I don't believe there was another realistic effort until decade's end with On the Beach (I could be wrong). The topic itself became politically controversial once it was argued that the nation had to take the nuclear risk in order to protect our way of life. Nonetheless, Oboler appears to be testing new ground in neighborhood theatres with a politically charged subject. And for that, the movie has a genuine significance over and above its obscure status and conspicuous limitations.The movie itself is fairly effective in tackling a big topic with a small budget. Phipps is superb as the steadfast survivor, showing the kind of untapped talent lying behind so many of the ordinary-looking movie people. Sad-faced Susan Douglas is excellent too as a survivor who can't let go of what is now gone forever, along with Charles Lampkin as the ill-fated black man eager to help. In my book, the movie's biggest problem lies with James Anderson's near cartoon-like villain with a French accent so obviously phony, it looks like someone wasn't paying attention. Then too, the character is poorly written compounding the problem. Too bad that Anderson's role is so central to the drama.Of course, in a time of limited special effects, the production's biggest challenge was portraying world destruction. Shrewdly, Oboler makes good use of the desolate SoCal scrublands to suggest a wider desolation in the many panoramic shots surrounding the isolated hill house. Just as important, the hill house's modernistic design projects us into a possible future. The opening montage of a traumatized Douglas wandering through the surrounding destruction creates the appropriate mood of dislocation. The visit to the city, however, is trickier. Notice how Oboler uses truncated shots of skyscrapers to denote the city, along with the more elaborate street sets. No doubt, today's digital technology would create vast smoking vistas of urban destruction. But that sort of spectacle, impressive as it is, risks overwhelming the human element which Oboler never loses sight of. Note too, the effective use of the ocean as another panorama of a world gone suddenly barren. That expanse also shrewdly suggests an eternity on whose edge humanity's survivors are now perched. It's this expert use of background that helps lift the results beyond the merely economical.It appears the movie was not well received critically. Certainly some of the dialog sounds stilted, a surprise since Oboler made his mark in radio drama. That, along with the unfortunate Anderson performance, may have soured opinion. Then again, the subject matter was both novel and threatening, even though the film ends on a hopeful note. However that may be, Five remains an unusual example of Hollywood minimalism that deserves broader viewing even now, 60 years later. For, unless I'm badly mistaken, there are currently thousands more nuclear weapons than there were in 1950. By no means has the movie lost relevance.