Nice effects though.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Just watched this on TV, the guide described it as a SF comedy and it certainly is funny - because it is so awful! Difficult to know how to rate films such as this because on the one hand I did enjoy it (for being so bad it's good) but on the other hand it is simply awful. The only positive thing about the production values is that it does feature some very attractive young women in skimpy dresses, though their attempts at dancing in sync fail miserable. The creature had me in stitches, must be one of the worst that I have ever seen. Highly recommended for film fans that enjoy watching bottom of the barrel turkeys.

The problem with this film being in the sci film genre is that the aficionados tend to take films far to seriously.Why else would so many people have rated it at 1'After all the budget of this film was clearly miniscule.The sets are very small.The rocket seems to consist of 5men sitting at a desk.The monster is a man in a monkey suit.Harry Fowler and Sydney Tafler talking with American accents.The exterior of the rocket is only shown as gas as the top of the ladder.The astronauts appear to wander around the nearest local park to the studio.The formaldehyde who seem like the contestants in the local beauty contest.A classic of the genre.

Despite inept dialogue, cramped sets, second-string acting, penny-pinching special effects, and time-wasting "B"-picture shuffling, this low-budget, sci-fi yarn is not all that unentertaining. Decided assets include: (1) The plot, neatly combining the Atlantis legend with Theseus and the Minotaur; (2) a bit of effective Minotaur make-up by Roy Ashton; (3) a few flashes of directorial skill by Mr Roth; and (4) not least, a bevy of really beautiful fire maidens led by the very charming Susan Shaw (one of my favorites, I must admit) and the agreeably villainous Maya Koumani.Camp followers will also enjoy the zippy music score comprising a few snatches of Khachaturian's "Saber Dance" with generous excerpts from Borodin's "Polovetsian Dances". If you close your eyes, you can almost imagine yourself listening to the soundtrack of M-G-M's Kismet.True, Dexter makes a wet hero, and Carpenter is even more soppy, but who cares?

I love cheesy Fifties SF movies. They evoke the world of my childhood more powerfully than any other kind of movies. In the UK, most of these movies were given A or X certificates, so I wasn't able to see them when they were first released, but the few I did see all left an indelible impression. One, believe it or not, was Fire Maidens. I guess I was only about 8 at the time, but the Creature dominated my play for weeks afterwards and I never forgot the movie.I didn't get to see it again until the late Seventies, when it showed as part of an all-night SF programme at a repertory cinema. It was a terrible print and had a complete reel missing, which made little difference to its coherence. Amazingly, although I could now see how truly desperate the movie is, I got a real frisson watching it. Part of me could still see it through an eight-year-old's eyes.As a result, I have a fondness for this movie that reason cannot explain. I endorse all that other reviewers have said but still enjoy it far more than it deserves. I would only add a couple of observations and one heartfelt plea.Firstly, the product placement doesn't stop with Longines. Why start the movie with a pointless flight from America, except to get the TWA logo on the screen? Later in the picture we see a couple of military types in a corridor seeking admittance to the control room. It is a completely unnecessary scene that required the building of an additional set. Why is is there? Check out the notice on the wall next to the guard: "Drink Coca Cola."Secondly, this kind of bottom-of-the-barrel garbage is unusual for British movies of the era. There is a whole strata of film making that did not seem to exist in Britain. There were no British equivalents of Ed Wood, Phil Tucker, Gerry Warren or Tom Graef: wannabee film makers with the sheer cheek to get movies made and shown despite the fact they had no money, no time and no talent. Their movies were undoubtedly abortions, but at least they got released. I suspect it was a cultural thing: that kind of maverick, 'can do' attitude was common in America but alien to Britain in the Fifties. It comes as no surprise to learn that Cy Roth, the writer/producer/director of Fire Maidens, was an American.Finally, I have a copy of Fire Maidens on NTSC video tape and on DVD. Both are edited versions, missing most of the surreal scene with the secretary in the observatory, and both appear to be transcribed from a poor TV broadcast (there is heavy fringing throughout).I know that better prints exist, because a complete version of Fire Maidens was shown on cable TV about 15 years ago. Does any one know where I can get a good print? Help me please!!