The format of this is the "Boy's Adventure," a genre which is now quite dead, existing now maybe only in Saturday morning animated adventures. But really a young boy's interest might be piqued in science and exploration by this. It's imaginative for the genre. I wanted to see it very badly as a kid, but my parents never took us to the movies.
It gets moving quickly, which cannot be said for most Disney movies of the era. At the 14 minute mark, things are already underway. The big shift since this was made is that a movie like this would star physically-attractive, young-looking stars, not 3 people crowding middle age.
The FX are mediocre, but some of them are surprising. The dirigible is passable about half the time (unlike the flying car in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang). But yes, it is hard to believe that this fell between 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Wars, two movies which are both more daring and whose fx are holding up better. It's hard to believe Disney used to be at the forefront of movie technology and effects, which by the 70s began to fail them. They aimed low and hit their target. This movie has cost-cutting as it's major aesthetic; bad rear-screen projection, indoor sets standing in for exteriors, and much too much faith in Albert Whitlock matte paintings. I did wonder if certain sequences weren't digitally improved for the DVD.
Stargate stole the first half hour of this. Bu then this has borrowed a bit from Lost Horizon.
It gets moving quickly, which cannot be said for most Disney movies of the era. At the 14 minute mark, things are already underway. The big shift since this was made is that a movie like this would star physically-attractive, young-looking stars, not 3 people crowding middle age.
The FX are mediocre, but some of them are surprising. The dirigible is passable about half the time (unlike the flying car in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang). But yes, it is hard to believe that this fell between 2001: A Space Odyssey and Star Wars, two movies which are both more daring and whose fx are holding up better. It's hard to believe Disney used to be at the forefront of movie technology and effects, which by the 70s began to fail them. They aimed low and hit their target. This movie has cost-cutting as it's major aesthetic; bad rear-screen projection, indoor sets standing in for exteriors, and much too much faith in Albert Whitlock matte paintings. I did wonder if certain sequences weren't digitally improved for the DVD.
Stargate stole the first half hour of this. Bu then this has borrowed a bit from Lost Horizon.