ChicDragon It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

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

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Rainey Dawn This is a neat little adventure film but not the best film to star Vincent Price or Henry Hull also Charles Bronson - but it is fun to watch. Henry Hull actually came out of retirement to co-star and that's a treat all in itself! It's sometimes funny - mainly the comedy comes from Topage the chef (played by Vito Scotti). Price and Hull are always good to watch which makes this film worth a looksy. Charles Bronson fans should get a kick out of seeing him in an earlier and different type of role from what we are used to seeing him cast in - but he's still a bit of a "tough guy" in it.I think this movie could make a fun adventure film afternoon with another Vincent Price film: 'War Gods of the Deep' aka 'City in the Sea' (1965).7/10

classicsoncall I see where other reviewers compare this film to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", but while watching I was reminded of another film based on a Jules Verne novel - "From the Earth to the Moon". Perhaps that was because of the ornate furnishings of Captain Robur's (Vincent Price) sky ship. At least he had a little more room to work with than Joseph Cotten's space ship. Both stories were set in 1868 too.Say, did you notice something when the Prudent party first took off in their balloon to inspect The Great Eyrie? The railing around the basket platform was only knee-high!! It wouldn't have taken much of a bump to send one of the passengers out into the wild blue yonder. For a highly skilled scientist, Prudent (Henry Hull) didn't live up to his name on that one.There's an interesting 'Wizard of Oz' connection going on here I might mention. The Prudent woman's first name was Dorothy (Mary Webster). Dorothy and Toto used a balloon to return home to Kansas at the finale of that picture, so it made me curious as to which story came first. Turns out Jules Verne wrote his serialized novel in 1865 while 'The Wonderful Wizard of Oz' was published in 1900.So back to Robur and his plan to rid the world of war, I actually thought that was a pretty noble idea. The idea that each man is responsible to every other man only goes so far however. In a simpler time perhaps a dictator powerful enough could exert that kind of threat and fear over other nations but it sure wouldn't work today. What we need is a powerful entity like the one from "The Day the Earth Stood Still" to insure that everyone stays rational in an insane world. Well I can dream too, can't I? Vincent Price was quite the cool evil genius in this one, separate and apart from the kinds of villains he portrayed in his horror flicks. He also looked the part as he towered over his crew as the master of his domain. Charles Bronson did a pretty good job too, but for a minute there when Robur and Strock (Bronson) discussed heading over to Ireland, I thought they might have been stopping by to pick up his wife.

Matthew Kresal By the late 1950s, the works of Jules Verne had proved a rich ground for filmmakers. The decade had seen two highly successful films based on Verne's best known works including the Disney adaptation of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea and the Oscar winning Around The World In Eighty Days. So it was no surprise that the years that followed saw a number of films based, to a greater or lesser extent, on Verne's many works. One of the more notable is this 1961 film starring Vincent Price and Charles Bronson from a script by another master of science fiction, Richard Matheson. The results are intriguing and watchable if at times frustratingly lacking.Vincent Price was at the height of his career when Master Of The World was made and he is without doubt the star of the film. Despite not coming on screen until about fifteen minutes or so into the film, Price owns the film from that moment onwards. Looking at the film, it's hard not to see echoes of Nemo in Robur and more especially the version played by James Mason. Both are mysterious inventors and captains of vessels very much out of their time who seem bent on a mission that is in some admirable if not misguided in their methods. Price has considerable screen presence which he uses to great effect throughout from moments of crazed anger to quieter moments where he tries to convince his captive passengers of his mission. It's a solid performance and one of the film's highlights.Besides Price, the real star of the film is the script. Richard Matheson, author of the oft-filmed I Am Legend and writer of some of the most memorable episodes of The Twilight Zone, was a natural choice to adapt not one but two of Verne's works for the screen (1886's Robur the Conqueror as well as the 1904 work that shares the film's title). Matheson's script draws on elements and characters from both works to create a composite of them that works surprisingly well so that the seems never show. The result is an early example of steampunk that, as the Disney 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea did a few years earlier, creates a fairly believable but fantastic adventure story set in the Victorian era. Despite being well thought and developing its characters rather nicely as the film progresses, Matheson is guilty of delving into the occasional cliché at times, especially in regards to how it handles the film's sole female character and her relationships with the younger male characters. On the whole though, Matheson does an excellent job and it's a shame that other aspects of the film don't quite match its standard.Move beyond Price and Matheson's script and the rest of the film is a combination of mixed results. The supporting cast is with Henry Hull as arms manufacture Prudent and Charles Bronson as square jawed US government agent John Strock being particular highlights (Matheson considered Bronson mis-cast in the role though he's perfectly acceptable and excels in the film's action sequences). Another highlight of the supporting cast is Vitto Scotti as the the chef Topage in a role that is entirely comic relief and calls to mind Cantinflas as Passepartout in the earlier Around The World In Eighty Days. Other roles go from satisfactory (Wally Campo as Robur's First Mate Turner and Mary Webster as Prudent's daughter Dorothy) to cringe-worthy (David Frankham as Philip Evans, Dorothy's fiancé). The cast though is just part of the mixed bag that makes up the larger part of the film.Nothing helps nor hinders the film more than its production values. The influence of the Disney 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea is clear watching the film as it centers around its vehicle of choice (the giant airship The Albatross) in much the same way that the earlier film centered on the Nautilus submarine. The Albatross, both as an exterior model and as interior sets, is a triumph and can lay as much claim as the Nautlius to inspiring steampunk fashions and designs. Yet, for those triumphs, the magnificent model is let down by poorly realized model shots that are almost entirely made up of the Albatross being superimposed over stock footage (or in several cases, scenes from other films including the 1944 Laurence Olivier Henry V) that is entirely unconvincing. Another place where effects let the film down is in the aerial keelhauling sequence which, while intriguing, is let down by the simple fact that Bronson and Frankham are suspended on ropes in front of stock footage while also at one point trying to dodge a couple of fake tree limbs. Combined with pedestrian direction from William Witney, the results let down both Matheson's script and Price's performance. Given how much previous Verne based films are on it (including a prologue showing the evolution of flight ala the prologue of Around The World In Eighty Days) it's sad at times to see how much a lack of budget hampers the film.The result then is that Master Of The World is a perfectly watchable piece of work. Price's performance , Matheson's solid script and the design work all see to that. Yet looking at how much the film is let down by poor special effects and uninterested direction, it's hard not to wonder what might have been if the film had been given both a larger budget and a different director. As it stands, it's a decent and memorable movie but it leaves you wondering what might have been...

TheLittleSongbird I saw Master of the World mainly because of Vincent Price who is one of my favourite actors. It is far from perfect, but is fun and deserves better credit. The effects are not great where you can tell that they are low-budget, while the stock footage of other costume epics looks rather clumsy, the Globe theatre suddenly appearing in Victorian London also happens to be anachronistic. And Vito Scotti overacts to the verge of embarrassment. However, the costume and set designs are nice to look at and Master of the World is at least well photographed. The music score manages to be both rousing and bombastic, the script while talky is intelligent and humorous and the story is fun. Charles Bronson has been better but he is at least appealing, while Henry Hull is amusing. Stealing the film though is none other than Vincent Price, who commands every frame with his ever effortless suavity and panache, and he is also deliciously sinister when needed. All in all, an enjoyable film with a great Price but at the same time it could have been more. 7/10 Bethany Cox