User reviews

At least to me it does. True, this film is a little dated. True as well, most randomly inserted footage of polluted rivers/dead animals & flashback are annoying at best, not really providing any insight or contributing to the overall atmosphere of the movie ; but then, it cut the monotony of the roaming band, allowing a smoother transition for the following "action" scenes.

So indeed, this movie is not without its flaws, but I hardly understand some of the harsh comments regarding the acting or the scenario ; the casting is excellent and the storyline somewhat believable. Without giving too much clues, if you consider what they go through before getting to the countryside, I wasn't really shocked by the general "shot first and ask questions later" attitude of the "hero", nor did I find the relatively short span of time before the collapse of organized society surprising. (Just look at what a panicked mob can do today and just imagine that there was actually such a dramatic event as portrayed in the story...)

So overall, I'd highly recommend this movie for any amateurs of "end-of-the-world" movies, providing you can get past the pseudo-ecological message and the general feeling of age. (which shouldn't be a problem if like me, you love B movies from the 70's - 80's.) A great late-night movie to which I would really like to see a remake made.

A bleak and uncompromising straight-laced minor b-grade apocalyptic sci-fi survival tale that's crudely made, but is grippingly constructed (despite a heavy-handed script and typically projected characters) and with committed acting led by the likes of a hardened Nigel Davenport, exuberant Jean Wallace and an unforgettably concentrated Anthony May.

John Custance, his family and friend decide to leave London to stay at his brother's farm in the Lake District, as just like the rest of the world Britain is plagued by a destructive virus caused by pollution that's destroying earth's crops and causing unstoppable panic. On their journey they pick up another couple Pirrie and Clara, but also come across a lot of obstacles and anarchy that would change the way they see things.

I wouldn't call it great, as it's an interestingly uneven production and somewhat cautionary tale that has its moments, but there are some problems evident that stop it being better than what it could have been. The two things that do stand out is the use of quick, fragmented flash forward sequences that take away any real sense of building upon surprises and suspense, to only confuse. Secondly it could have been a little more powerful in it theories of civilised society falling apart, as no one is better than anyone else in their primitive state to keep alive. What it feels like is over-the-top melodramatics and struggles, which aren't boring or emotionally forced but could have used a bit more weight. However what director Cornel Wilde develops is an effective apocalyptic vision of a dying world of dreary images (dead corpses --- humans and animals, decaying plant life and destruction of civilisation) covering brooding forlorn landscapes. Even what should be a peacefully desolated countryside, still provides looming threats outside the chaotic cities. Strangely moments had me thinking of M. Night Shyamalan's 2008 eco-thriller "The Happening". The violence has that exploitative, gritty touch with moments of relentless surges and unsettling intensity. It's not graphic, but it doesn't hold out. Wilde does use some odd, if static filming techniques that show its low budget but add to the moodiness, so does the haunting title song. The score can be harrowing when complementing the visuals, but could find it clunky and overdone. The performances are reasonably brought across, even with the black and white shadings.

Producer / director Cornel Wilde ("The Naked Prey"), working from an adaptation by Sean Forestal & himself of the John Christopher novel, fashions this material into a decent exploitation-message film. Ultimately, it's a retread of earlier films like "Panic in Year Zero", but it's generally well done. It's certainly well acted, and Wilde does come up with ways to make the film visually striking. (Such as the countryside littered with animal corpses.) He gives the story a polished presentation, complete with some harsh and uncompromising moments.

The idea is that humans have finally contaminated their home planet so badly that a virus has emerged that affects things like grass, wheat and rice. London descends into a state of utter chaos, and amid this societal breakdown, the Custance family makes the very long trek up North to where John Custance (Nigel Davenport) has a brother (Patrick Holt) with a farm. The Custance family acquires numerous other travelling companions along the way.

The deliberately stylized "flash forward" shots are a little disconcerting, but mostly Wilde sticks to the meat and potatoes of the tale. He's not afraid to show things getting grim, showing us that, in the end, survival can be a pretty ruthless business. And basically good people like the Custances can make alliances with a somewhat shady individual named Pirrie (Anthony May).

Wilde lays on the message a little thick with the opening minutes of stock footage, but soon draws us into the story proper, thanks to an effective, time-honoured premise and generally good acting. Davenport is solid as a no-nonsense, take-charge kind of guy, with the real-life Mrs. Wilde, Jean Wallace, cast as his wife. John Hamill, Lynne Frederick, Anthony Sharp, George Coulouris, Wendy Richard, Nigel Rathbone, Christopher Lofthouse, Ross Allan, and Christopher Neame comprise a very fine supporting cast.

Overall, a respectable effort that also works because the Custances and their followers do create a strong sense of community.

Seven out of 10.

The ubiquitous success of the zombie horror genre is, I believe, not due to the zombies as much as the depiction of societal breakdown and collapse, and the struggles of modern man to survive in a once-again savage, primordial world. That struggle is the focus of this environmental catastrophe tale, co-written and directed by Cornel Wilde.

In a near-future UK, a family decides to leave London and head north when a spreading virus has decimated the worlds crops, leading to rampant starvation and outbreaks of anarchy. The family hopes to reach the safety and security of an uncle's secluded farm. Along the way they run into the usual apocalyptic obstacles: scarcity of supplies, violent hooligan teens, rape-gangs, motorcycle savages, seemingly normal townsfolk turned murderous in the face of privation. Can the family make it to safety with both mind and body intact?

Even making allowances for the film's age, this is pretty goofy. The acting is passable at best. The script has all of the subtlety of a sledgehammer to the cranium, with repeated scenes of pollution and nature despoiled. Wilde also made the poor decision to place several flashes of future events throughout the film, which only serves to spoil said events when they eventually occur in the progression of the story. The soundtrack features a corny theme song by Roger Whittaker and a lot of bad acid rock instrumentals.

...Panic in Year Zero. A realistic examination of how quickly civilization can devolve and asks if one can preserve morality and civility in a world turned savage. The situations feel gritty and genuine. The way different personalities react and try to cope feels very authentic. However, it does get a bit long winded and quirky. It almost has a touch of Dr Who of the same era including the sound track. Panic in Year Zero is a bit tighter of a film and fits into it's decade (1950s) quite well with the backdrop of nuclear war. This film is set more in it's present day but in the future sort of. It's a decent B movie and has its moments. Just don't expect high budget effects or zombies.

What most people seem to have missed is the Exodus theme and the Moses figure of the main character. He leads people to a new promised land in the midst of chaos and plague. He is assisted by a Joshua character who does the organizational work and heads the military actions. The daughter's fiancé is the hesitant and uncertain Aaron. Somewhat confused overall and not as effective as it could have been. The flash forwards were distracting and set up an anticipation that detracted from the present scenes. It is difficult to see how the film was an argument for environmental causes. It would be better seen as a cautionary tale on the fragility of society. Given a socially disruptive situation people are often incapable of recognizing the need for social order and become, instead, survivalists. Social order is even more necessary when normality is undercut and crisis events threaten to overwhelm our institutions.

In case there ever had existed a special type of award entitled: "best movie to make its audience feel guilty about their stupidity and reckless behavior", the price undoubtedly should go to Cornel Wilde's "No Blade of Grass"! Particularly during the opening sequences, but in fact also non-stop throughout the rest of the film, we are confronted with endless shots of pollution and starved animals. A stern voice- over also repeatedly states that only humanity is to be blamed for the destruction of our planet. I've never seen "An Inconvenient Truth" but I'm pretty sure it can't be as preachy as this one. Heck, I even started to feel very guilty and responsible for all the pollution, and I wasn't even born yet when "No Blade of Grass" was released! The first 10-15 minutes of the film solely exist of montages of factory chimneys producing thick clouds of orange smoke, airplanes spraying pesticides, overpopulation, oil spills, deforestation, enormous traffic jams, close-up of cars' gasses, nuclear testing and industries dumping waste into the sewers. Then the eerie voice-over suddenly states: "Then, one day, the polluted earth could take no more…" So, in case it wasn't clear yet, due to continuous pollution, a still unidentified virus destroyed all the earth's crops and the world's cities are rapidly becoming extinct. John Custance wants to lead his wife and daughter to safety, and together with his befriended scientist Roger Burnham, they sneak out of London and head towards Scotland where his brother David has a farming estate. The journey is long and – as they quickly discover – full of danger. They must confront villainous biker gangs that want to rape and murder them, but also regular and once- civilized people like themselves that are prepared to do whatever it takes to survive. "No Blade of Grass" constantly balances between vicious post-apocalypse exploitation and genuine human melodrama. Director Cornel Wilde clearly wants for his film to be a more intelligent and thought-provoking end-of- civilization drama, but it's actually one of the meanest and most violent ones of its kind. The title song is simultaneously powerful and depressing, but unfortunately there are also quite a few dull and unnecessarily slow-paced moments as well as shallow dialogues and stereotypical characters. "No Blade of Grass" is certainly a must-see for fans of bleak apocalyptic cinema, but in all honesty I still expected more from it.

I read the novel when I was a lad but was never able to lay hands on the film until recently. The movie is far worse than I had imagined it could be. The acting is very bad - the female lead, played by producer-writer-director Cornel Wilde's wife - is among the worst actresses I've ever seen. She's right up there with Mrs. Tom Laughlin in the horrendous "Billy Jack" movies. The rest of the film is also poorly cast - though it was fun to see one or two familiar faces pop up, among them a prominent actor from "Citizen Kane." The film seems to have been so badly under financed that Wilde was forced to pad the film with stock footage of belching smokestacks, polluted rivers and dead animals. The garishly colored flash forwards are a miserable idea, as is Wilde's narrowing of the frame in scenes of childbirth and particularly gruesome animal carcasses.

The author of Death of Grass, John Christopher (real name Samuel You'd - for some reason,the IMDb site keeps adding an apostrophe to the name) didn't see this film at the cinema when it was released.

Years later, when it was broadcast as a late night movie, he sat down to watch it in a comfy chair, a glass of whisky to hand. He lasted until the first advert break and then, sensibly, retired to bed.

This cries out to be remade - one or two of John Christopher's other novels would make interesting films, too.

John Christopher was often compared to John Wyndham and the similarity certainly exists - although Wyndham had the edge.

I wish IMDb would withdraw the 10 line minimum requirement - seems a bit arbitrary!

I saw this movie only once years ago and have never forgotten it. I remember nothing about the direction. I only remember how horrified I was by the movie. With today's headlines of global warming, war (is it a war yet?)in the Middle East, horrible crimes against humanity worldwide, famine, ecological disasters, you name it... this movie pops into my head all too frequently. I wish it would come out on DVD. Certainly there are equally badly directed movies on the market today. I think this movie would strike a note today (even if it is snickering or guffawing at it's overall horridness). It may not be as good as Shawn of the Dead, but it has certainly stuck in my mind over all these years as one of the best consuming ecological disaster movies I've ever seen.

This film essentially begins with several scenes of pollution on a massive scale throughout the world with the result that a new virus has developed which begins killing a great amount of the cereal grasses mankind depends upon for food. Naturally, with this development, starvation begins to take a devasting toll starting in Africa and spreading across the world with social unrest following in its wake. The scene then shifts to London where a relatively influential scientist named "John Custance" (Nigel Davenport) has obtained information about drastic actions about to be implemented throughout Great Britain and he decides to take his wife "Ann Custance" (Jean Wallace) and teenage daughter "Mary Custance" (Lynne Frederick) to a more rural area up north where his brother "David Custance" (Patrick Holt) has a farm. Also traveling with him is his assistant "Roger Burnham" (John Hamill) who also just happens to be Mary's boyfriend. Be that as it may, realizing that there are violent mobs between them and their final destination they decide to stop at a gun store along the way to purchase additional firearms and ammunition. Unfortunately, when the shop owner refuses to sell them anything, things take an immediate turn for the worse resulting in the owner being killed by his own employee "Andrew Pirrie" (Anthony May). In gratitude, John agrees to allow both him and his wife "Clara Pirrie" (Wendy Richard) to travel with them. What John doesn't realize, however, is that Andrew is much more aggressive than most people and it will take all of the leadership skills John has to keep him in line. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that--as far as early apocalyptic films are concerned--this is probably one of the better ones out there. At least for that specific time period. It does, however, seem a bit mild in comparison to those produced within the last 20 or 30 years--but that's probably to be expected. Of course, whether or not viewers in this day and age will enjoy this movie is another matter entirely.

A solid and early contribution to the whole (post-)apocalyptic business. Production quality and acting are good enough, and what I like most about No Blade of Grass is that it tries to give us a realistic glimpse in how a world-wide breakdown of society would develop and progress - so we don't get only a Mad Max and one of his many clones but a more realistic story about a family struggling for survival in an increasingly anarchistic world. Of course, we get also a solid dose of violence and a nasty biker gang in denim and leather (maybe an source of inspiration for Mr. Romero and his Dawn of the Dead?). Anyway, no masterpiece but a solid one for the right eye.

We've been told that Cornell Wilde was an avid fitness and environment enthusiast (but this unfortunately didn't seem to help him much in the end). His main intentions may (or may not) have been in the right place but either way he was sadly out of his depth with this subject. I enjoyed (if that's the right word) his 1966 "The Naked Prey" but here, he miss-fires on so many points:- Over the top sensationalistic details of exploitative situations (so-called 70s reality) ~ clumsy editing complete with ridiculous flash forwards ~ everyday family folk who simply walk away after committing crimes they would never have contemplated just a few days before! ~ overuse of typical 70's lab effects in an attempt to gloss up weak images ~ bland el-cheapo music score (except for a main title song nicely performed by Roger Whittaker - and he's not even mentioned in IMDb's credit listing!). It all added up to a messed-up message film in the worst of 70's style. In many ways it's worse than some of the low budget 50's films it emulates.

This movie is yet another sad failure in Wilde's behind the camera career - perhaps had he left the cause for most of the resultant mayhem at chemical warfare, instead of steering the screenplay toward smoke stack type pollution, it may have been more convincing. AND have to say NO, to those that have made the suggestion of a re-make - haven't we had too many poorly made examples already.....(this subject would need a high end - intelligent film maker along the lines of Peter Watkins' brilliant doco style production 'The War Game' from 1965, to do it true justice and there seems little chance of that....)

Cornel Wilde who was acclaimed for Beach Red ran short with No Blade Of Grass where he is only behind the camera. The film stars Jean Wallace the real life Mrs. Wilde and Nigel Davenport as her screen husband.

Davenport is a scientist and mankind seems to have come to an end. There's a virus probably developed by us that is killing all the grass and not just grass. Wheat, oats, rice, those things that are animal fodder is also dying. With that government is breaking down as people are starving.

We also find out what a luxury urban centers can be. More authoritarian governments are just killing off urban centers to save the rest. The raisers of food are always the backbone of any society.

Davenport and Wallace and their family leave London to try and make for farm country and his brother's farm. Along the way society breaks down more and more as Davenport by virtue of his charisma attracts a small following. One has to wonder is this how tribes developed as humankind was beginning its evolutionary rise.

It's a sincerely made and cause driven project, a bit heavy handed at times. But the message is clear about preserving our environment and our food growing capacities.

This is a surprisingly entertaining albeit dated movie. Due to pollution, an environmental holocaust ensues, and a group of individuals battle for survival. Plenty of graphic action and explicit violence. Need to get accustomed to the flashback and flash forward technique used in the film. Moralizing and messaging is a feature of the picture which goes with the period it was made. Nonetheless very nearly a cult classic! Nigel Davenport is a fine charismatic actor. Deserves credit for wearing an eye patch which has nothing to do with the story but because of his own real life medical condition.

6 and a half rounded up:

7/10.

"No Blade of Grass" is a difficult movie to watch. It's depressing beyond belief, graphic and even includes a rape*. It is NOT for the squeamish or someone looking to enjoy what they are watching!

The story is a near future sci-fi film about the apocalypse. Pollution and mismanagement of the planet has resulted in plagues and food shortages...and in some cases cannibalism. In a few cases, such as China, to alleviate the shortages, the government has been wiping out millions in the hopes that others will survive. Eventually, much of the world degenerates into anarchy...with the strongest and most ruthless surviving. In the midst of this is an English family that is trying to make its way to family living in the Scottish wilderness. And, along the way, their morals vanish and it's all about survival at almost all costs.

The idea behind all this is creepy and hard to watch. It is, despite this, an interesting and thought-provoking picture. But it also suffers from one huge problem...bad direction by Cornel Wilde. The actor just seemed to suffer from excessive edits (which were often sloppy and nonsensical) as well as a need to focus on the gross...such as rotting animal carcasses and naked females who had been assaulted. It made me feel a tiny bit dirty watching it. It also featured folks behaving incredibly irrationally at times--very nonsensical such as during the biker gang attack....NONE of that made any sense.

Overall, a chilling picture that is handled somewhat ham-fistedly. For a much better sort of thing, try PANIC IN THE YEAR ZERO with Ray Milland.

*Reportedly, one of the victims was played by an underage actress...and this was just awful and unnecessary.

Just watched again, this for the first time in thirty years. It was as I remembered it - dreadful soundtrack, some stilted direction, full-on eco- warrior ranting, but it doesn't matter. The movie has no clichés, no happy ending, no holding back, no false veneers of good guys and bad guys. I am wracking my brains to come up with a similarly amoral film, from the English speaking world - yes, we might see something of this type from the French new wave, we might see it in Korean or Japanese movies of today, rarely. Sonatine comes to mind. But in a British movie of the 1970s, set in our own countryside?

Inspired, bleak, flawed of course and very dated, but damn close to unique. Damn prophetic too. If you want to see what an anti-hero *really* looks like, look at Anthony May's Pirie. Possibly the most plausible EOTW film around.

I know, I know. In most cases, when a book is adapted (or ignored except the title-see THE HOBBIT and about ten thousand other books made into film), one always hears this. In this case, 100 percent true. I waited years to see this, after having read the book many times, and was totally disappointed. Over-acting, lack of a budget, why an American as the hero when this takes place in England? I like Cornel Wilde, and he does play a man who, like Ray Milland in Panic in Year Zero, learns to be brutal. But the movie drags in far too many places and some the of the actors are pretty wooden. It attempts to show society fall apart and tear itself up, but falls a little short.

I was a mere child, albeit a precocious fifteen-year-old one, the first time I saw this film on a first date with a young man who, despite the film, continued to see me for a few more years. Perhaps remembering the excitement of the date, or maybe recalling the timeliness of the film's subject, I recommended this film to a more mature young man several years later when it was playing in my college town. His sister was in town, and we dragged her along,too. I'll never forget how embarrassed I was to realize how truly wretched the production values were--surpassed only by remarkably overdrawn performances replete with grotesque vignettes that made me grimace. Naturally, the young man lost all respect for me, and who could blame him. Chris Drouhard, if you're out there anywhere, I'm sorry about this film.

On the other hand, those people who embrace profoundly bad cinema that may take itself a tad too seriously, should definitely consider "No Blade of Grass".