User reviews

In a world after nuclear war destroyed 92% of the human population, humanity uses blue-skinned humanoid robots called Clickers as servants and workers. As the Clickers become more sophisticated and humanlike, an anti-robot watchdog group called the Order of Flesh and Blood rises in power. When the Order discovers Clickers are creating robots that are identical to humans and one of them has killed a man, conflict between the humans and Clickers seems inevitable.

One of the smartest and most original sci-fi films of its time. Unfortunately, its talkiness and static direction prevent many from recognizing its worth. In my view the smart script, relatively short runtime, and steady pace balance out the criticisms. I don't even see a problem with the low budget since they do remarkably well with what they have. It's a movie full of ideas and great dialogue that gives you a lot to think about and still holds relevance to topical issues of today. It's what sci-fi is, at its best, all about. Creepy electronic music score is a plus. Also one of the last films of legendary makeup artist Jack Pierce.

I see other reviewers crying for a remake. What a waste of everybody's time that would be. First, the ideas presented and explored here were revolutionary for sci-fi films of the early 1960s. That wouldn't be the case today so it would hold little impact as a modern film. What seems thoughtful for that time would be just another preachy message movie made today. Second, and we all know this is true, they would attempt to fix the original's technical flaws by having tons of shitty CGI and ridiculous action sequences. It doesn't need to be remade. It's an excellent and underrated science fiction film from the later part of the golden era of sci-fi. People need to learn to appreciate movies that are older and have a lot to offer, instead of just trying to update them to today's often crass and ostentatious "standards." Make new stuff for today and stop mining the past for ideas, please.

Maybe I just like robots too much, but having only just seen this, I happen to quite like it. The ideas are familiar by now, the production values make Star Trek look extremely flashy, and the characters tend towards wooden, but somehow it's better than all the expensive monster movies that pass for sci-fi lately. Fans of Blade Runner might appreciate this one. There are lots of little dialogue details worth paying attention to, which add a lot of context. Some older comments suggested this was one of the worst films the viewer had ever seen. I don't think it's even in that contest. It stands head and shoulders above dozens of sci-fi movies I've seen, some of them old and some of them new. Watch it if you can find it. :)

Don't let the rating I gave this movie dissuade you. I actually think people who like 'thinking' science fiction should check this out.

Some have suggested that this 1962 feature should be remade. If someone did do a remake, they'd have to just accept the fact that many casual viewers would claim that this movie's remake was ripping off Blade Runner, The Questor Tapes, Ghost in the Shell, and the 2000s Battlestar Galactica. However, it looks very much like all of those shows 'borrowed' from this 1962 motion picture.

Clearly the concepts in this film were really coming to a head in the 1960s. "Do androids dream of electric sheep" was talking about a lot of this stuff in 1968 (and who knows how long the book took to write). Captain Future of the 1940s and 1950s touched on some of this too. Every time I dig a bit deeper, I find out that someone's tackled many of these concepts. Heck, even Fred Saberhagen's Berserker novels tread similar territory.

I've written this in such a way that I don't give too much away. I think the best thing is to see the film for yourself. Be prepared though, since certain aspects of it are certainly dated. The preliminary robot designs during the film's intro are primitive looking (and almost comical). And the pacing is somewhat difficult at times. Stick with it though. The thesis comes out in the end and it's pretty entertaining to watch it unfold. This is a movie that could actually be done as a stage play. To that effect, I really enjoyed the sets and the lighting. With such a deep message, I felt that even more dramatic lighting and higher contrast ratios would have added even more gravity to certain scenes.

So yes -- check this out. It must have come as quite a shock to audiences of the time. For audiences today, it covers topics that we're quite used to so the impact won't be as great. Still pretty neat though.

This one is enjoyable IF the viewer is prepared for the movie's distinctly odd nature and low budget. According to the story, World War III has depleted the Earth's population, but reconstruction efforts are progressing rapidly with the help of a newly developed race of `humanoids' (hairless, green-skinned androids who possess high intelligence and who serve with total faithfulness).

In fact, the androids are so intelligent and sensitive that many people want to have them destroyed, because they fear the androids will overthrow mankind. A few sympathetic humans have sided with the androids -- including the sister of the most outspoken anti-android activist. She actual MARRIES one of the androids. One rebel scientist conspires with the android members of a secret group who strives to perfect the androids and make them even more human.

Shot on a shoestring budget, the sets are fairly simple (although reasonably imaginative), and the acting is sometimes pretty bad. The soundtrack music is a kind o low-rent version of the `Forbidden Planet' tonalities. Oddly enough, all these apparent flaws somehow endear it to the more forgiving viewers, perhaps because the film works so hard to put across some very strange and imaginative concepts, including a nifty little surprise ending.

Watch for several recognizable props and costumes from classic science fiction movies, such as the glass tubes and the gray, one-piece uniforms from `This Island Earth'. One of the `early prototype robots' seen during the film's opening prologue is actually one of the armored alien space suits from `Earth versus the Flying Saucers' -- and it was spray painted silver!

There was, a few years ago, a prerecorded tape of this little gem available for rent at video stores. It you can find one, you're lucky. It's a nutty little cult classic from a by-gone age.

I saw this movie years ago and it left quite an impression on me. What a brilliant story and premise. It is basically a story of prejudice - long before its time (1962). The production, acting and directing was awful, but if you can get past that you will be rewarded. This is a story that needs to be considered for a new production which is more professional. There is no need to repeat the story since another reviewer has done an admirable job. In this story the "mad" doctor has a heart and is really a good guy. It is the flesh and blooders vs. the clickers. But you can substitute any other racial conflict such as the race riots in the U.S. and others throughout the world. I have never read the book, but am anxious to find it.

This variation of R.U.R. has a good story line and may be worth a single viewing if you can find it showing. However the acting is somewhat lacking. Somewhere deep in here a good movie might be hiding. A remake with a bigger budget and better acting is in order.

Sixty years after it was originally shot this unique movie continues to divide the still tiny number of people that have actually seen it from Susan Sontag to Andy Warhol - the latter quoted by David Bourdon in the 5 December 1964 edition of 'The Village Voice as calling it "the best movie he has ever seen" - to Leonard Maltin, who gives it a 'BOMB' rating.

Obviously screenwriter Jay Simms knew his sci-fi, and it remains one of the very few sci-fi movies accurately to reflect fifties magazine fiction and visually to evoke the cover art of the era. With expressionistic sets stylishly lit by veteran cameraman Hal Mohr, it resembles one of the preachier episodes of 'The Twilight Zone' or 'Out of the Unknown' with it's allegory of bigotry (which anticipates later more prestigious productions like 'Guess Whose Coming to Dinner' and 'Blade Runner'), and manages to compress an enormous ammount of allusion into just an hour and a quarter. The League of Flesh & Blood, for example, wear Confederate-style uniforms and are pointedly dismissed by the sister "in rapport with a Clicker" in language that could easily apply to the Klan ("You hold meetings. Wear ridiculous clothes. You tell each other how superior you are to the robots. Because you know we're not!"). Meanwhile accusations of electoral fraud are still arousing passion sixty years after Kennedy's highly questionable election victory over Nixon in 1960.

The wonderful dialogue is regularly remarked upon, my personal favourite being "the only crime that can be committed against a robot is vandalism"!

Great sets and an interesting, complicated story told in streams of dialogue that never seem to end. Civil War uniforms against a futuristic set show where they spent the budget, but the android makeup isn't too bad.

If you can get past the poor acting and low budget aspects of this, and be willing to listen and pay attention to a complicated story as it unfolds, I think you'll find it worthwhile. That's a lot of ifs, though.

I liked it, but I think I'd rather read (or listen to) Asimov or Heinlein or something than watch it again.

I hadn't seen this movie since the early 1960's when I was about 12. It made an impression on me then and, after renting this through Netflix as part of a "Double Feature", it still does!

The plot revolves around earth in the future (or is it the past?), with the human population ravaged through nuclear war. Only a remnant population of human beings remain and are dwindling, thanks to the effect of radiation on reproduction. Most tasks are handled by robots of varying degrees of sophistication, and who are taking on more and more responsibility in the running of earth, including becoming romantically involved partners with humans. At the core of the film is "The Order of Flesh and Blood", a group who is very wary of the robots and their activities, and who constantly monitor the robots' activities.

Without giving away too much of the plot, suffice to say that some of the robots have been entrusted to save man from himself, and the ending offers some interesting thoughts about what makes a human a human, and if robots are actually better at being human beings than human beings themselves.

You can definitely see the inspiration this movie provided to later films such as Bladerunner, Terminator, and many others.

The acting and many of the lines are cheesy, and the budget is minimal, but it's still a thought-provoking and entertaining film that gets the maximum out of the minimum. Recommended!

This is a wonderful, thoughtful little film with timeless messages about prejudice and what it is to be human. A lot of people comment on the low budget, but there were some A list Hollywood people involved in making this like the most famous make up man ever, creator of the Universal Frankenstein make up for Boris Karloff, Jack P. Pierce, doing wonderful work near the end of his career. The great and colorful cinematography is done by the famous Hal Mohr who has a star on the Hollwood Walk and a long list of credits. The screenwriter was Jay Simms who went on to fame and a long career in television, so this film is not without talent in the people who made it despite its low budget. The film is also a bit cerebral for some people, and does have a lot of talking in it, but like the best Science Fiction films and T.V. programs, like the Twilight Zone, THE STORY will make you think deep thoughts. You can't say that about most big budget modern Science Fiction. I have a lot more respect for film like this, doing a lot with a little through the WRITING and the STORY than I do virtually any modern film whose story, if there is one, has been dummied down assuming no one in the audience has a working brain.

Much has been made about the fact that Andy Warhol loved this movie. It's easy to see why given the wonderful colors, lighting, and almost pop art looking sets. Despite being cheap, the film is often a wonder to look at. It also has Dudley Manlove of Plan Nine from Outer Space in it. Do your self a favor and watch this film if you can find it.

I like this movie.

Forget the sets and such, they're there as literal background, helping to tell a story. Yes, it's a little talky but I'm fine with that. The story has a complexity not found in most scifi of the time. The characters are not stereotypes and have depth.

I'll think I'll remember this one.

...or maybe it is less fresh in the minds of other voters. Back in the '60s in Los Angeles, there was on Channel 9 (KHJ), the famous "Million Dollar Movie." They showed the same movie every afternoon for a week (and I believe there were evening and weekend broadcasts as well). In any case, on a good week, one could see a favorite movie over and over and over. They tended to be Gladiator/Hercules movies but...there was also "The Creation of the Humanoids," which is the direct precursor of "Bladerunner." (It even predates by six years "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" the Phillip K. Dick short that inspired "BR.") This was one of the great films of my youth! I loved it and never, never failed to watch it for as many days that I could. Unfortunately, more than a few years ago, I saw it as an adult (post-"BR"). It did not hold up well. It was like returning to a favorite schoolroom and discovering, geez, what a dump! Bad acting, bad effects, bad writing.... The sets reminded me of "Star Trek." I still have affection for it, but give me "Them!"

Even in the realm of the weird there is nothing else quite like "The

Creation Of The Hummaniods." Sure it's cheap, and it's got Dudley

Manlove(too small a role), but this dense, futuristic drama is miles

from Ed Wood and explored ideas (yes, "Blade Runner") that would be

judged profound coming out of a film with a budget.

The movie has about as many camera set-ups as "Rope"; but

a million times more story. Sure, it has unintentional humor, and

the most interesting thing about it; in the end, is it's an

unintentional exploration of boredom(hence, I think, the tie to Warhol).

It is moralistic, but avoids easy morality. Pax is a victim, but

also a seducer. Those who embrace the wave of robots are are hopeless as

those who attempt to enslave them.

This is a one of a kind film, and should be seen. Ten out of ten.

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 "Ice Station Zebra" was to Howard Hughes, "Gone With the Wind" is to Michele Lee and "Lawrence of Arabia" is to George Takei, 1962's "The Creation of the Humanoids" was, famously, to Andy Warhol: the reported favorite film of a renowned celebrity. As it turns out, however, "Humanoids" is as idiosyncratic and offbeat as was its famous admirer. In it, 92 percent of the Earth's population has been killed off by a 48-hour atomic war, and the so-called "Clickers"--humanoid robots with dozens of varying abilities--have been created to improve mankind's lot. The film centers on a hunky dude named (The) Cragis, a gerontologist by day and a member of the robot-fearing Order of Flesh and Blood by night. Cragis learns that the robots have perfected a method of transplanting a man's essence into a robotic body, fueling his organization's paranoia. But more far-reaching secrets are yet in store....

Anyway, this truly is one bizarre little movie, and I use the term "movie" with reluctance, as that expression implies movement, which this picture most assuredly lacks. If anything, "Humanoids" resembles a filmed stage play, with six or seven discrete acts; really, it would be easily adapted for the theatre. The picture is nothing if not stagy; it is basically all talk, with zero action and almost no motion whatsoever. The actors stand in place and deliver their lines theatrically, while director Wesley E. Barry keeps his camera trained on them. There is hardly a special effect to be had, and the picture looks as if it had cost around $500 to make (but probably cost twice that). That's the bad news. Fortunately, there IS plenty of good. The film is also surprisingly well acted by its relatively no-name cast (the only name I recognized was Dudley Manlove, of "Plan 9 From Outer Space" fame!); Don Megowan as (The) Cragis is particularly good. The script, although a tad dry, nonetheless contains highly challenging philosophical discussions on the nature of man and machine (although not to the degree attained by Data and Picard in "ST: TNG"); it is a refreshingly intelligent film, full of ideas. The look of the picture is also unique, with interesting sets and great use of color; the film FEELS like no other I have ever experienced. Clocking in at 75 minutes, "Humanoids" is compactly told, and features an atmospheric, all-electronic score, a la the great "Forbidden Planet." Though the film bears little resemblance to its supposed inspiration, Jack Williamson's famous novel "The Humanoids" (1949), it is yet a sui generis effort that succeeds in impressing. And where else are you going to find the line "How do you apologize to someone for killing them?"? All in all, an interesting choice, Andy!

This is on my personal list of the worst movies ever made - it may have been written and acted by robots. When I saw that it is being released on DVD, I couldn't believe it. The acting is stiff, the script is overly talky, the film thinks it is profound, but is so only in a "let's get stoned and analyze the universe" sophomoric sort of way. The ending, which is apparently meant to make the viewer leave thinking, is just silly.

I first saw this in college - at MIT, with a bunch of Sci-FI geeks, and WE thought it was the worst movie we'd ever seen. If that was our reaction, what would a normal, thoughtful film goer think?

The only thing that gets it a 2 star rating are two quotes that have defined this movie for me for 35 years.

Maxine: "What should we do about dinner?" Cragis: "Eat it."

and...

Cragis (speaking to a "clicker") "I'll pull your memory so fast, you'll never forget it."

I read somewhere where this is Andy Warhol's favorite film. Go figure.

"The Creation of the Humanoids" is a very low budget film. The costumes are pretty cheap (with many folks much like Confederate Civil War soldiers), the sets minimal and the actors all unknowns. But, the plot is very inventive and could have worked even with these shortcomings--too bad the acting and dialog were so bad that the film became difficult to watch. It's a shame, as I could see the basis for some later movies and TV shows in this--including "Star Trek", "Terminator" and "Battlestar Galactica"!

The film is set in the future--a future where there are HUGE numbers of amazingly lifelike robots. However, they have skin like Smurfs and talk a bit robotically--so most humans (aside from those from the Order of Flesh and Blood) accept them as a boon. The robots make life very easy for us--and take care of our every need. Like seems very good to most. However, the robots have a secret--they're a lot more advanced than people think and are making robots who look and think like humans--and society might be inundated with them.

The neat idea of robots who might be a threat to mankind is pretty good--especially since the film predates so many other similar films. But the acting and robotic talk (of both the humans AND robots!) make this about as dull as they could make it. Too bad. It has a lot of great ideas but manages to make the film a chore to finish.

This was a movie I first saw when too young to appreciate fully. I seem to remember it "not" being strong enough material for the Saturday Night Creature Feature, so it was relegated to the secondary, late Sunday morning Sci-Fi/Horror slot. I don't think this movie makes anyone's top 10 list, but it's a goodie, even with scenery that makes Dr.Who look state of the art. Money just wasn't as lavishly thrown around in those days.

It's not glitzy and special effects aren't necessary to the story. The concept,however, is solid. It presents a near future(?) scenario where radiation is up and births are down. Man's creation, the humanoids, get more human with each upgrade. This is more than some "flesh and blood-ers" can take. They see the humanoids taking over for the superior "living" men. Man is dying out (gradually) and some of those left focus their hate and anger at the "clickers" (a derogatory term for humanoids). Humanity is eventually doomed or is it?

I guess you'll have to watch the movie to know for sure.....

In a radiation-scarred, post apocalyptic society, the few humans who have survived have relegated the "po folks" work to humanoids, artificially created beings. Recent models of humanoids have been more "human like" creating social problems (i.e., romance with humans). Humans, fearful of their status, wish to keep the "inferior" humanoids "in their place." The gravest danger: most humans are sterile from the radiation; and they fear being supplanted by the humanoids. This film is a cross between BLADE RUNNER and PLANET OF THE APES, with greater similarities to the latter.

Now, what do you do when you are a sci-fi producer with a very limited budget in the low tech days of the 1960s? Well, you can fill the movie with action or talk. Action also costs money; and, if you have a "serious" (read: pretentious) subject (bigotry), action would "cheapen" your message. So, of course, what other choice have you than talk? That's what fills CREATION OF THE HUMANOIDS, talk, talk, talk; almost endless talk. It wouldn't be so bad if the viewer had some talented name actors to watch, or even some clever dialogue. CREATION OF THE HUMANOIDS has neither. I'd give it a B+ for message, a C- for execution.