I'm not real sure how to feel or what to think about this film. It's drab, very slow and not all that grand. There is something kinda good about it that I like because it's different, silly, kinda campy and a little bit interesting. I was guessing the film would be a bit faster paced than it is and it wasn't but somehow that's exactly what this film needed: a slower pace.If you are watching for Basil Rathbone then don't expect to see much of him because he's hardly in the film - just the beginning of it really.The robot doesn't do much of anything except do what it's told to do - really realistic that way but he's not much for a science fiction film, it seems he should have had a little special quality about him so he could stand out more in the film.The movie is nothing to brag about and can be a snoozer - a bit boring at times but I still kinda liked the film a little bit.4/10

Basil Rathbone is the only actor of any repute in "Voyage to the Prehistoric Planet." He plays Professor Hartman, but his minor role and name aren't enough to elevate this film to anything worthwhile. The lead female, Faith Domergue, plays Dr. Marsha Evans, in probably her largest role. I don't think she was ever in a movie made by a major studio. The rest of this cast appeared only in lower tier films – mostly forgettable and none that I could recall ever having seen or known about. Indeed, most of the male characters are stilted, choppy or wooden with their lines. The plot is nothing to excite one – it's just about exploring a distant planet. The monsters aren't anything too scary hereSo, why would I give this movie four stars? Because it does a splendid job of showing scenes that one might imagine from space exploration. It has cataclysms, some creative creatures, and some good camera work for scenes on the unknown planet. And, it gives us the first credible look at a robot, which is well done. It does a good job with special effects, especially with a space car that moves elevated off the ground. This is a mild film that portrays landscapes one might expect to see on distant planets (or moons). It shows that interest was peaking for more sci-fi about space travel. That would be met the next year when Gene Roddenberry unveiled the "Star Trek" TV series. That, in turn, launched a more advanced genre of space sci-fi films that continues well into the 21st century. Perhaps this film was an inspiration for Roddenberry or others who made future space films.

A pair of cosmonauts aided by a robot crash lands on Venus prompting their support crew to make a treacherous search and recovery effort. Both crews discover that Venus is inhabited by unwelcoming lizard-like creatures, and the constant vocal apparition of a woman, prompting them to search for signs of a prehistoric life above and below its surface.Re-edited Russian film features Rathbone and Domergue in unconnected footage as space station transmittance, while the original Russian cast do all the grunt work on the surface of Venus, aided by the "Robbie the Robot" esque "John". There's a couple of reasonable action sequences with prehistoric lizard beasts, some impressive scenery and moment or two of genuine intrigue as the cosmonauts are haunted by the possibility of life existing on the planet, but unable to make substantive contact.The film's climax and conclusion fit the somewhat sombre tone and while potentially not an audience-pleaser, is still passable. The original Russian movie "Planet of Storms" looks to be a competent sci-fi film in itself (forgiving some crude special effects, e.g. the aquarium footage), the US-shot inserts of Rathbone and Domergue, while adding some marquee quality, aren't really needed to bolster the original format. A bit ponderous at times with the laboured 'are we alone' dialogue, it's more coherent than its second revision, Peter Bogdanovich's abysmal "Voyage to the Planet of Prehistoric Women" a second attempt to re-edit the original, and an abject mess.

this film should probably be taken more seriously than it is usually taken. it is way ahead of it's time in terms of thinking and in special effects and sci fi photography. it's robot is way advanced for that time period and even pre-dates that Val Kilmer sci fi film about the Red Planet.this film is one of the more vivid memories from my childhood. along with the creepy finger hats from '5,000 fingers', the memory of the robot stuck in the river of lava has always been a image that made a indented impression on me. i hadn't seen the movie in over three and a half decades and was curious to see if it would still hold up. i was surprised to find out it was better than i remembered and that the outstanding horror director Curtis Harrington was involved. who would have thought since this doesn't really seem typical of Harrington's type of thing.people who fancy themselves to be great know it alls forget that part of the art of critical sensibility is understanding something about origin and where technique started. uh, that's called history or something. everything has it. it makes for better learning if you truly try to study it. to make a better critic and to have better understanding of the truth it's good to note the origin of things and where they began and how they got started. so many people are into pointing out limitations in movies like this without ever realizing the advancements that were made in cinema at the time. in many ways even 'Forbidden Planet' feels somewhat clichéd and typical in comparison to what this movie did at the time.as far as fun goes, this film certainly delivers. a lot of it, attacking dinos, man eating plants, bikini clad prehistoric girlies, is pure retro, kitschy fun, other things, like the hovercraft and the robot are pretty good science speculation. whatever, fact or fiction, this movie delivers interesting imagery.don't listen to the naysayers on this one. they didn't stop to think. a lot of this movie is probably a lot more plausible than the sci fi silliness of a over blown junkie fix like 'Avatar'.