Gli invasori spaziali

This one scared the hell out of me when I first saw it as a kid; I remember them showing it in the evening on BBC2 back in the 1980s. Looks like a lot of other reviewers were similarly traumatised. Watching it now, as an adult, it's easy to laugh at what is a shoddy, low budget production. Scenes are repeated, special effects are wobbly to say the least, the aliens are silly rather than menacing, and the paucity of the production is apparent in every respect.

And yet...there's something oddly menacing about this film. It's partly the Cold War paranoia-inspired plot about nice, ordinary people being taken over by a sinister foreign menace. Interestingly, this is the earliest version I've seen on that theme, predating INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS by a couple of years. The paranoia is cloying and really raises the hackles, even as an adult, and even allowing for the cheesy over-acting of the child star.

The more overt aspects of the story, which take place towards the climax, are also profound, and in this case the imaginative nature of the production outweighs the budgetary constraints. That alien leader, little more than a head in a goldfish bowl, is oddly disturbing and an image that's stayed with me for my whole life. It's easy to forgive the problems in a film like INVADERS FROM MARS when it contains such classic, timeless material and I do think this is one of those '50s-era B-movie alien invasion classics.

After reading many of the comments regarding this movie, I am somewhat amused to see how many have forgotten that there was life before CGI computer effects.

"Invaders From Mars" is still potent in the most valuable way, and that's imagination. The storyline, which owes a great deal to "The Wizard of Oz" in it's final moments, has deep psychological effects which still resonate today. If it wasn't so effective, people wouldn't still be discussing it after nearly fifty years.

CGI effects have dumbed down movies to nothing more than computer-effects orgies, relying on a "gee-whiz" factor that ultimately comes up empty in more than a few cases (the big-budget "Godzilla" leaps quickly to mind here). IFM was originally set to be a 3-D movie, which was ultimately scrapped for budgetary concerns. William Cameron Menzies, the director, used the original sets which had been designed to force perspective. The resulting film, which throws the objectivity to a child's point of view has fascinated viewers for years. Menzies did the best with what he could afford, and the visual results are still gripping even today. Yes, the film has it's flaws, but we need to consider the making of IFM in its historical context. Menzies was an Oscar-winning art director (for "Gone With the Wind", no less). Also consider his work on "Thief of Bagdad" with Sabu, one of the most beautiful color films ever made. IFM shows the same visual excitement (referred to by some viewers as "garish"), but rising above it's badly slashed budget to gain a foothold in popular memory.

It's sad to think that the work of a real artist will be dismissed simply because he worked in an era where technology hadn't swallowed vision.

Invaders From Mars is, arguably, a cult classic. William Cameron Menzies, of "Gone With The Wind" and "The Thief of Baghdad" and "Things to Come" fame puts his artistic expertise to work in creating a world of impending doom, seen through the eyes of an 11 year old boy.

It is because of this point-of-view that lends a nightmarish quality to a struggle this boy encounters when he tries to convince the authorities that a spaceship landed in a sandpit behind his house.

The sense of "something's not right" with Mom and Dad starts as the boy's parents are sucked below the sandpit into the evil arms of the Martians, made into zombie-spies, and returned to the surface. The boy's fear mounts when local police and even high-ranking military fall prey to the Martians' mind control.

Through the assistance of a well trusted astrophysicist and a school psychologist the boy convinces the local Army base to make a beach head in the boy's back yard... and the battle to return the boy's parents and the villagers to normalcy begins. Eventually, the boy and the psychologist confront the Martian intelligence (midget Luce Potter as a convincing body-less head with tentacle-like arms in a glass sphere). In a poor "race against time" sequence in which the little boy and psychologist are rescued from the spaceship before it blows up, the film reaches its climax to the cacophonous din of artillery explosions, and Raoul Kraushaar's eerie, disharmonious a capella choir.

Many criticize the poor production values, the over use of stock footage, the idiotic costumes, and the fact that the film had TWO endings (one popularized in Great Britain, one here in U.S.A.).

Yes, I agree that production and set values were cheap (green condoms to represent molten rock "bubbles" in the tunnels and obvious zippers in the velour-like jump suits of the Martian slaves, to name a few.)

Nevertheless, Menzies applies forced perspective to his sets, and the skillful use of background mattes to lend an unearthly tone to the scene Remember folks, this is 1953... a time when Communism infiltration and subordination of Mr. and Mrs. Joe America was the chief "fear of the day". There are few other films of that period that deftly portrayed this paranoia so aptly as "Invaders From Mars"

If one overlooks the "rough" edges of its obviously low budget, one can still appreciate the helplessness, fear and mistrust the little boy develops as his parents and others are turned into "tools of the Martians". Is it truly a nightmare, or did it actually happen? The viewer is left to make that choice.

I was seven years old when I was taken to see this movie by my sixty-year old Lithuanian grandmother (to whom it must have made no sense at all). The images in the movie - the big green guys, the melting rock that looked like an explosion in a bubble gum factory, the people falling into the sand pit, the dreaded implant approaching the pretty neck of Dr. Blake, the little silver octopus-like guy in the fishbowl - all replayed themselves in my mind over many nights. I saw it again recently on AMC and can see many of the things that are dated, but can also understand why the movie made such an impact at the time. The concept, especially, of one's parents being taken under the control of evil forces is particularly disturbing to a young child. The music and sound effects, too, are particularly eerie. The almost abstract quality of the set in the police station scene lends it a foreboding quality. I'm ambivalent on how to rate it. It very much shows its age (and they could have shortened the stock army footage of tanks rolling) but has much that gives it a weird sort of drawing power even today. A curiously compelling movie.

I was only a year old when this movie came out, but I saw it on TV when I was around 8 years old, and it made a deep impression on me. In fact, when they brought out that long needle, my sister and I hid behind the couch and screamed for our mother to come turn off the TV! As a result, I did not know how the movie ended until I saw it again as a teenager. The special effects may seem cheesy to the jaded audiences of today, but they were effective enough to give me nightmares for years. (In one dream I am being carried by my own mother, who is walking stiffly, with a fixed smile.) I believe what makes it work is that the entire film is seen from the point of view of the boy. The director capitalizes on the insecurity of young children, and the way they relate to the world around them. All the best horror and science fiction movies succeed not because of CGI, costumes, rubber prostheses and fake blood, but because they focus on basic human fears and insecurities.