User reviews

Post-nuclear-war dramas centering on a small group of survivors now constitute an entire genre in science-fiction films. All of them, in some way or another, can be traced back to this seminal film from 1951 in which five people deal with the possibility they are the only human beings left alive on the planet.

While most of the later movies exploited this possibility for B-movie thrills, "Five" adopts a quiet, contemplative tone which some may find dull but which thoughtful viewers are more likely to find, for want of a better word, haunting. There is something about this movie which gets under the skin and which lurks in the corners of the mind long after it's over.

Especially memorable is the trip to the city made by two of the survivors. The images of skeletons sitting in cars and buses still have an impact with their silent, disturbing, even horrifying beauty.

Some of the musical score now seems obtrusive and the dialog tends, at times, toward the pretentious -- perhaps a lingering effect from Arch Oboler's radio background -- but this low-budget, no-name, black-and-white production remains a landmark film which richly deserves to be rediscovered and honored.

I 'd never heard of this movie, so I was surprised at how good it was, shoestring budget or not. The acting isn't that bad, although James Anderson (Eric) has one of the strangest accents I've ever heard (It's somewhere between London, Bombay and Berlin). One fascinating 6th surivivor in the movie is the house itself that most of the scenes take place in. It is a cliff house designed by the great American Architect , Frank Lloyd Wright. Somehow the house and scenery add an extra sense of elegance to the movie that would have been lost if it was set in another setting. The characters are frequently filmed against the spectacular views from the house's large glass windows, emphasizing their loneliness in a world now so large and unpopulated. The pacing is glacial and seems to dwell on the (frequently depressed) moods of the characters, bringing to mind Bergman films like Persona (although Arch Oboler is no Igmar Bergman). The most likeable character is Charles, played by Charles Lampkin, who would go on to appear in films as varied as 'The Man', 'Islands in the Stream' and 'Coccoon' as well as a semi-regular character 'Ralph' on Mayberry RFD. He has a sweetness and naturalness that makes his paraphrasing of the beginning of Genesis one of the high points of the movie. It's a pity that he wasn't born later, or we would have seen more of him than the string of uncredited appearances in movies throughout the 60s and 70s.

A bit overwrought and florid, but very enjoyable. Several reviewers pick on it because they seem to think that the characters are walking around in a totally depressed state throughout the movie. I don't see this at all. In fact, I perceive them as incredibly upbeat and positive about their situation, all things considered. One of the aspects of this film that I enjoy the most is the pure villainy of the bad guy. It's rare nowadays to see such an uncompromising and ungrateful jerk written into a script. He's human and believable, but he has no redeeming qualities at all. Also, he accomplishes this without the aid of technology, secret weapons, or even any sort of clever scheming or evil plans.

The cinematography is pretty good, with some startling shots and quite a bit of hand-held camera.

Finally, and I simply can't pass on this, the title is numerically correct for the majority of the movie. A couple other reviewers have stated that it is incorrect and I'm not sure if they're numerically challenged or what.

My first and only viewing of this film was over 25 years ago on New York's old Million Dollar Movie channel 9. Its theme of how the human race almost put an end to itself was presented in a very simple, bleak and thought provoking manner by its director Arch Obelor. I often remember that movie as my first and most impressionable "end of mankind" movies. It was made on a shoestring budget, with unknown actors and yet I consider it the most powerful film of that genre. I have not seen it on television since and cannot find it on video. I still can envision that night as a young teen, after having viewed that movie, thinking of our world, our future and what humankind is capable of. Wherever a print of that film is, I wish our present generation could view it as food for thought. Thank-you for allowing me to express my opinions on a forgotten "little" film.

In authoritative books about science fiction in the movies, Five is generally dismissed as crude and simplistic. There is justification for this, but somehow I found the picture interesting anyway. The fact that it was shot on a shoestring may even have helped. Being forced to use only five actors and a single ready-made set--his own Frank Llloyd Wright house in the California hills--director Arch Oboler created an intimate self-contained world.

This narrow focus increases the intensity of the drama, which, as an end-of-the-world story, has its own inherent interest.

The plot doesn't bear much looking into. The way these five people--out of the entire world population--came to be together amounts to wild coincidence. There is a certain amount of sermonizing of the why-can't-we-all-get-along variety. And so on--it's hardly a great movie.

But it's interesting nonetheless and worth looking into.

A friend sported me a copy of 'Five'. Frankly I must admit that I'd never heard of this little gem before. 'Five' tells the tale of five survivors of a nuclear holocaust trying to pick up the pieces of their lives and move forward. The film is wonderfully acted and nicely photographed in a way that reminded me of Romero's 'Night of the Living Dead'. Strict minimalism is on display as the actors convey 99% of all story and action told mostly at a cottage. 'Five' is pretty impressive stuff for it's time. The only real downside to the script is the fact that it hasn't aged well from a 'scientific' standpoint. Other than that anyone with a knack for classic SciFi would love to check out this lost gem.

Acting: * * * * (Excellent) Writing / Direction: * * * (Very Good) Technical Design * * * (Very Good) Music: * * * (Very Good) Overall: * * * (Very Good)

Enjoyed viewing this black and white film from 1951 dealing with a few people who were able to survive a nuclear war which killed millions of Americans. William Phipps, (Michael) lived in New York City and witnessed the entire city's population killed and he traveled to the West and was able to find a town where he could obtain food and shelter. As the film develops he meets up with a young woman named Roseanne Rogers, (Susan Douglas Rubes) who is pregnant and Michael takes her under his wing and tries to comfort her and he begins to fall in love with her. However, Roseanne wants to find her husband in the city and keeps her distance. There is three men and one woman who remain alive in this film and all these people begin to get on each other's nerves and this story takes on some very mysterious twists and turns.

I find it sad, my husband got no credits for this movie, He was not the new born baby. He was the baby she carried around with her to the city looking threw the hospital and they showing him dead along the creek...Now if you really watch it when he is dead his foot moves..HAHAHA we always get a laugh, they placed him next to Charles.. He was 3 or 4 months old. while his family was at the beach for the day, Arch Obler pulled over in his car and asked if he would could play in his movie, family said yes. his mom drove him out to the set everyday...James Kenneth Cowgill Jr..He was paid 395.00 for his part and family bought a new car...We love seeing old calif ..

This movie starts off with a mushroom cloud and pictures of what were the greatest cities on earth. It then shows a young woman named "Roseanne Rogers" (Susan Douglas) in a disheveled condition walking down a lonely road in a state of shock and disbelief. She happens to see a cabin perched upon a mountain top and decides to take shelter there. Once inside she meets a man named "Michael Rogan" (William Phipps) who is as startled to see her as she is to see him. They think they are the last two people on earth. Until two more men show up and then a third. One of these men, "Eric" (James Anderson), believes that they have developed an immunity to the radiation and that they should drive to a city a few days away to look for more survivors. Michael believes that the city is dangerous due to high levels of radiation and unsafe. Now, rather than give the entire plot away I will just say that this is a surprisingly good movie for its time and it is rich in drama and tragedy. Definitely worth a watch for those who enjoy dystopian films of this nature.

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.

Surprisingly good apocalyptic film. Done on a very small budget, with no special effects, the story is engrossing and well written. While it is obviously a small budget and done in black and white, it feels much more realistic and the emotions and story line feel honest and true, unlike so many of the 1950s movies on the same subject. I stumbled on this movie by accident when they were playing all the end of world pictures for the 12-21-2012 date (which, of course, didn't happen). The movie is so very effective and terribly sad and yet, in the end, strangely hopeful for mankind. I liked this film so much, I think I'll do a little research on Arch Oboler, who produced, wrote and directed this film. Just proves you do not need a big budget to make a good and interesting - good writing, directing and acting.

This is one of those cases where the flaws of the film in question are undeniable, and yet...there's something about this earnest little effort that gets to me. Perhaps there is something about the 50's look and feel and sound that I find winning; the actors do their best by the overripe but affecting script; and there is also the fact that, however primitively, the movie does attack prejudice and bigotry as the disgusting things they are. The strong background score by Henry Russell is really quite beautiful in spots, terrifying in others -- the slow orchestral buildup in the scene where Roseanne finds her husband gives me the shivers whenever I hear it. Personally, I don't find the film boring; once you ease into its rhythm it plays quite well. And the ending...well, yes, you can see it coming a mile away; but keep a handkerchief ready just in case.

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.

Probably the first post atomic apocalyptic film, made in 1951. This is a good film, not great, but a solid early science fiction flick- this one is different in the sense that there are no monsters or dangerous marauders- there are just five survivors who must deal with each other, with dramatic results. This is a tale of major interpersonal conflict, a small group trying to cope with the aftermath of some sort of nuclear catastrophe.

The plot is a bit thin, the characters are a bit one dimensional and get involved in maybe too many mundane activities, yet this is a taut story that keeps you guessing what the end will be...against a lovely outdoors backdrop and memorable vistas, the expected sometimes never happens, a testament to the directors talents. Overall, the film 'works' but I wish certain avenues could have been explored that were shunned in this effort- but for a low budget, about $75,000, this one punches above its weight category. 5.9 stars.

A home designed by Frank Loyd Wright is featured, this was owned by the director.

I just sat through 90min of this movie & have come to the conclusion that eating broken glass with mayonnaise would be more pleasant.

The sluggish, lethargic plot is AWFUL...I wouldn't know where to begin. Lack of realism infests this movie on many levels.

The explanations as to why each character survived the atomic holocaust are paltry as well as unscientific.

Anytime a movie begins & ends with a biblical quote, beware! The only reason I gave this awful movie 3 out of 10 stars is because it was shot very well, and the sound is good but the story is excruciating.

It's a rare movie that needs to stay rare...sorry.

This movie proves that, like giving birth, even inexperienced, poorly funded and virtually unknown independent individuals can produce a masterpiece. Once you have seen this movie, you will never forget it. A "Day After" movie that will have you mentally holding your breath hoping these five people will be able to start rebuilding the human race and repopulate the earth. But wait, these are not special hand picked superior examples of humanity. They are common everyday people who bring their own baggage to their situation. Racism, lust, suspicions, envy, pride, you name it. Will humanity survive, and learn, or will they follow the same path that led inexorably to the final conflict that laid waste to the planet. A similar movie, "The World, The Flesh and The Devil" with Harry Belafonte and Inger Stevens while very good, in my view, doesn't achieve the stark realism of "FIVE"

Arch Oboler's apocalyptic earth-shaker still packs a mighty punch. Searing at times, this thoughtful, loquacious drama follows the struggles of a poet, a pregnant woman, a banker, his bank teller and a mountain climber, as they search for safety, viands, and a new beginning. You have to hear the mountain climber's roundabout explanation on how he survived. It defies logic. They all surface at the director's home, a "Frank Lloyd Wright" creation embedded into the mountainside. Oboler, I believe, intentionally mixes disparate influences into the narrative: European Neo-Realism, art house/independent film fair and 50's-style television/anthology convictions. No fooling around. And it all comes together in the end. The death and destruction of society is handled with little commotion. The special effects are limited but effective. The director simply scatters some skeletons here and there and topples over some vehicles. The metropolis is lifeless and intact. It's coldly effective. I like how the older banker is given more dimensions than usual: his money worthless, he wishes only to see the ocean one last time. Wistful. He is an empathetic character. The black man is the saint here. He is hardworking, quick-minded and a decent man who doesn't deserve his fate. The foreigner is a lost cause, a traveler who doesn't wish to plant any roots. Not in this limited colony, anyway. He is smart--but evil. At all costs, stay far away from him. The poet is the avid reader and philosopher. He sees himself as the best choice for leader. He clashes (often) with the adventurer. The pregnant woman is mankind's final hope; the "Eve" to the poet's "Adam." The child she is carrying is you-know-who. It all ties together in one smooth swath of cloth. Or does it?

Seeing this as a six year old on a local television channel in 1963 proved a traumatizing experience! One that generated nightmares for years.

Why you ask?--the sight of a forlorn, bedraggled, and very wretched young woman (Susan Douglas) wondering in absolute exhaustion, back bent, arms dangling forward through a skeleton infested ghost town. Only the wind and a few birds accompany her solitary odyssey.

Even in her exhaustion, she screams out "Somebody help me!" to no avail, her shouts in counterpoint to a tolling church bell the wind has activated, a bell and church no longer destined to call forth any living congregants.

Susan Douglas's predicament: a world in which she is seemingly the sole survivor--her emotional response: benumbed stupor--proved far more unsettling to this six year old than the exploits of Frankenstein.

Seen in 2008, those haunting images still retain their unsettling power. Miss Douglas, by the way, later became a regular cast member of the daytime serial, "The Guiding Light."

i first saw five on the late show when i was in highschool in the mid-60's and i never forgot it, images from it stayed with me--i saw it again in the late 70's or so and then, the last time, in the early 90's on tnt (and taped it and loaned it to someone and never saw it again)--the last time i watched it i was astonished at how visually perfect it is, in many ways too perfectly staged--often the light is coming directly from the horizon like a maxfield parrish painting and i've often wondered if the actors and crew had day jobs and the whole thing was done early in the morning or late in the evening--leonard maltin likes it and comments negatively on its "purple prose", which is true, but i'm a noir fan and it's fun--i can't believe this isn't available on tape or dvd--obler's frank lloyd wright house is a treat too.