SPOILER ALERT: SEE THE MOVIE FIRST!! I like it. It's low-budget, but a very smart and interesting story. And this is one movie you could enjoy almost as much with the screen turned off. In fact, I've done it! It's all about ideas. As a movie, the eerie music helps carry the story along, and the costumes and sets are a nice enhancement...but this is essentially a "reader's theatre" performance. There's no action to speak of, just people and robots talking. I think it's good as a movie, but I think it would have also made a great sci-fi story on radio. In a way, it might be even better, because it would let you concentrate entirely on the weighty ideas being discussed by the characters, without the distraction of visuals.Again, MAJOR SPOILER ALERT...I'll take minor exception to the premise of the ending, where it's revealed our current population are actually decendents of a species of robotic replacements for a human race that eventually died out. Here's my problem: The story repeatedly says the robots are superior because they are essentially immortal, with unlimited lifespans. If we are descendents of them, our bodies wouldn't die either. I know, I'm overthinking a fantasy story, but after being forced to think deeply through the entire movie, it's difficult to turn the brain off when considering the ending. :-)

Legendary pop artist Andy Warhol was apparently a big fan of this low budget sci-fi flick. It takes place in a post-apocalypse Earth. Robots created to serve Man are becoming the majority since human life is now fragile. Gerontologist Kenneth Cragis (Don Megowan) is among those working to find ways to extend life spans. He's also adamantly anti-robot, heading up a group dubbed The Order of the Flesh and Blood. Trouble brews when the increasingly advanced robots prove themselves capable of killing humans."The Creation of the Humanoids" is one of those movies that's more notable for its intentions than what it ultimately accomplishes. The major criticisms is that it's almost all talk and very little action, and that it is admittedly static. There aren't very many set-ups from scene to scene. Characters endlessly stand around and talk about the plot. The performances are mostly stiff, although since some of the actors *are* playing robots, this can be forgiven. One exception is the enchanting Erica Elliott as Maxine, the young woman who catches Cragis's eye.On the plus side, the movie offers a fair bit for its audience to think about. It visits a very common theme in science-fiction: what it means to be human. It also touches upon the subjects of bigotry and advancing technology. It manages at least one provocative plot twist. It's directed in a very flat style by Wesley Barry, but its futuristic designs are decently done on a low budget - the assortment of colours is fairly pleasing to the eye.It might be worth a look for devoted B movie watchers.Six out of 10.

Creation of the Humanoids takes us to a future Earth ravaged by nuclear war. Even while maintaining a high standard of living the survivors are suffering from low birth rates and the possible end of mankind. Enter the creation of advanced robots to fill the gap.Sounds o.k. doesn't it? And if you want to consider the idea of robot rights and what it is to be a sentient being this film could be for you.One problem. Creation of the Humanoids is a series of scenes where actors talk and talk and endless talk! No action, no special effects, damn little plot, just monologue after discussion, and then more chit chat. The script for this film must be 200 pages long! Don't get me wrong, I like a good conversation, but that is all you get in what has to be one of the most static, boring films ever made.On the positive side, the silver contact lens looked pretty good.If you have an interest in the subject, rent it and be ready with the fast forward button.

What a peculiar, flawed little gem! Judged by any criterion this film shouldn't work at all. The script is insanely wordy and there is hardly action to speak of, for 75 minutes people just stand in a row across the screen and woodenly deliver screeds of expositional dialogue towards each other, often without any cuts or camera movements - sometimes, when there are cuts, the off screen dialogue is delivered by the other actor/s so straight and flat (almost as if they were just prompting) that it appears the editors either had no idea about sound editing or the director had given them nothing to edit together. The sets are minimal and flat, the costuming cheap, the score electronic 'Space Age' ooooeeeness seemingly unrelated to anything happening on screen.So far, so what? Sounds like every other cruddy 1950s / 60s lo no budget SF movie - it even starts with a montage of stock footage nuclear explosions. But what actually arrives on screen is an odd mix of genuinely novel SF ideas (I particularly liked the Human / Robot 'marriage' idea that sees one of the characters transferring aspects of her personality to a robot and then falling in love with the refection of herself) and a stream of philosophical ponderings and anti-prejudice messages that must have been mind-blowing to a teenage drive in audience of the time (if they had managed to stay awake long enough to see them). The plot has our central anti-hero character (an anti-hero in a cheap 60s SF movie in itself is a major oddity) is one of the leaders of a quasi-militaristic, group with growing influence over the police and government, dedicated to the preservation of MAN in a world where the already tiny population of a post holocaust Earth is declining due to radiation induced mutations and sterility. The group sees the ever more sophisticated Robots as a threat and agitates against them (think Brownshirts and Jews). Our 'hero' discovers a robot disguised as a human being and suspects a plot to replace real humans with replicas, then is told his sister is living openly with a robot she is in love with. He goes to visit her to put a stop to that sort of disgusting behaviour and meets a friend of hers. There is an immediate bond and the two fall in love - we discover (before they do) that both he and the girl are robot replacements implanted with false memories (this film was made in 1962, six years before Philip Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep was published), and the final shots hold out hope that the human race will allow themselves to be resurrected, one by one, in near indestructible robot form and that robots will soon have the ability to reproduce much in the same was as humans do now... cue end title...It's all pretty woodenly done and some of the writing is dreadfully dull but there are more SF ideas thrown out, and assumptions made, in this movie than in any dozen other more mainstream SF movies of the period. The film is unsurprisingly (but amazingly) adapted from a novel by Jack Williamson (at the time - as now - it was rare for Hollywood SF movies to be based on existing works). The movies main problem is that it looks just like it. A novel filmed.Apparently this was one of Andy Wahol's favourite films. It'll stand another watching.