X the Unknown (1956)

Two years before The Blob (1958) we had X The Unknown (1956). X takes a more serious approach and a bit more adult of the two films, whereas The Blob is a bit more comical and teenager-ish. Both are good creature features if you like that sort of thing. I like The Blob better.The copy of X I watched had a weird wave to the entire film that is hard explain. It's not wavy lines though it. It's not a rocking motion of the camera man I don't think but almost as if the film was sliding around during the recording to DVD but it could have been originally filmed that way - it's hard to say. I can say that it made me a bit nauseous and dizzy watching it. (I watched it via YouTube).I would not go out to buy this film and would not care to watch it again, but I am not saying it's a terrible film... it's just not that much fun to watch.4/10

Dean Jagger is a scientist working at a lab in Scotland, trying to find a way to render radioactive materials (like a bomb) harmless. The earth splits open nearby and a rude lump of glowing stuff comes pouring out, lethal, crackling like bacon in a frying pan, and conveniently built of the kinds of radioactive stuff that Jagger is working on.The blob -- for the most part unseen -- manages to kill several locals by radioactive poisoning before Jagger and the authorities are able to deploy a full-scale replica of their laboratory model. It may not work because "the fans are out of synch." Or it may explode, like the tiny lab model does.Will it work? Is Jagger's fantastic theory of blobby organisms having been forced underground as the earth's crust thickened correct? Is the short, squat dilatory figure who runs the lab correct when he calls the whole thing balderdash? Will the whole mess blow up? Why does hail always have to be the size of something else? Did the Masons really design the first dollar bills? It starts off slowly and mysteriously. That's the best part. Then it gets fast, complicated, scientifically inaccurate, and very loud. Sometimes the suspenseful musical score, on top of all that crackling, as of cellophane being wrinkled, literally drowns out the speech so you can't hear what the characters are saying.It's not terrible. It's just a routine example of those 50s Briish SF movies that used an imported Yank as the main figure -- here Dean Jagger, there an improbable Gene Evans -- and sometimes they worked quite well -- Brian Donlevy as Quatermass. In this one, the performances aren't bad but the script has a tendency to lose itself once in a while. In the very last scene, there is a blinding explosion from the creature's fissure. Knocks everyone flat. What was that, asks a soldier. Jagger is staring thoughtfully at the smoke wreathing out of the fissure. "I don't know," he replies, "but it shouldn't have happened." Camera draws away. The End. It should have happened if you'd decided at the last minute to end the movie with a big bang in order to use up the left-over special effects explosive.

The always reliable Hammer Studio would find its Artistic, Money-Making stride the next Year, but before that there were offerings like Quatermass and this follow-up and it was obvious that there were rumblings of Greatness afoot.It would take Classic Monsters, Color, bloody Violence, Cleavage and smart Production all around that would take Moviedom in a new direction and announce that Hammer Studios would be an unforgettable force for the next twenty Years.This was before all that and is an eerie, quite effective, very low-budget, brainy, anti-nuke Movie that has great and gloomy Atmosphere with believable Characters experiencing Horrific situations. There is a good deal of "Scientific Explanation" and is a bit talky here and there, but this nonetheless remains a very good Shocker that is much better than the overrated Rip-Off, The Blob (1958).Definitely worth a view for B-Movie and Horror Fans and even for those who like to laugh at this kind of stuff. Even they may be impressed at its doom laden, Cold-War seriousness and overall quality.

Considering it was shot in the 60s, it is pretty graphic for that time. Then again, Night of the living dead came a few years later and put a new level of gore out there. This one is tame obviously in todays time. It didn't age well in some departments. People are used to more by now. Some of the acting also seems very wooden.This British effort is still a good movie, that build the blueprint for other similar (and I guess more successful) movies. The acting is nice and the effects are pretty decent too, although you should be aware that most of the time it's more what you imagine, rather than what you actually see on screen. If you don't mind the age, try it. You might even like it (which shouldn't be a surprise)