Invasion, U.S.A.

This film is no masterpiece. But it is nowhere near as bad as often made out, perhaps by those who have never seen it.

The use of stock footage, and some cheap special effects, is not unusual for films of this vintage. For a low budget film, it actually made good use of the available resources.

I suspect most of the criticism is not based on the film itself, but its supposed political failings. However the politics of a film are not a reason to pan it. We recognise the Battleship Potemkin as a great film, despite it being communist propaganda. The same applies to Triumph of the Will as Nazi propaganda. Less successful but no less political films, such as Schindler's List, are rated on their merits, irrespective of their message.

Invasion U.S.A. adopts a narrative that is close to documentary. It does not include irrelevant romantic distractions, or complex sub-plots. It is rather more of a war film than an anti-communist work.

The enemy is not clearly identified. They look and sound rather more like Nazis than Reds. The identity of the enemy is not as important as the message that America needs to be ready to defend itself. I would have thought that the message that a country needs to be vigilant is as correct now as in 1952.

The course of the invasion, and its successful outcome, were refreshing after watching too many gung ho American films where the US heroes always prevail. This film shows the reality that the USA could have been invaded by the Soviet Union in 1952 - if they had been, the Soviets would almost certainly have won the war. Russia had a narrow window of opportunity, before the USA developed too many thermonuclear weapons, and invasion would be too costly. There were Soviet invasion plans prepared.

I wonder when we will see an American film about a successful Taliban or ISIS attack on the USA, with the message that the USA needs to be prepared.

A small diverse group of strangers lounge in a New York cocktail bar . Suddenly there's a newsflash and reports come in that a foreign power has captured key installations in Alaska and the whole of America is now threatened with invasion

You want to make a small subtle point ? Well just get a sledgehammer to crack a nut and this propaganda film is it . The opening sequence is set in a cocktail bar and a middle class businessman complains about having to pay the top rate of tax and if this atrocious behaviour by the government wasn't bad enough they also feel the need to interfere in other aspects of the free market . Wow next thing you know they'll be banning smoking in bars or perhaps even banning the sale of alcohol itself . Taking taxes off people is rather small fry compared to what American federal government has done in the past or indeed the future when this film was made . Perhaps this character might like to live under a regime where people don't tax simply because they don't get paid . Oh hold on here's a newsflash " Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it comrade "

I've seen a few Christian propaganda films recently that were all universally dreadful they made me forget there was a time when American studios were constantly spewing out propaganda like this one . Often they were entertaining enough to disguise the danger of communist invasion by producing science fiction films where the aliens were closet reds , usually from Mars which is " The red planet " . With INVASION USA no attempt is made to disguise who the invaders are . Even though both Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union aren't name checked you're under no misapprehension who these bloodthirsty tyrannical invaders really are . I suppose this is indicative of American thinking at the time but the invasion itself isn't creditably developed or delivered . If the Soviets capture Alaska as a bridgehead why not nuke the airfields in that state ? How are they able to fly over Canada with impunity ? How are able to bomb New York from San Francisco ? etc etc etc . There's also a lack of credibility in other aspects ? For example here's no sense of time passing between events and the time frame seems bizarre to say the least . How on earth can the TV news report detailed casualty figures to events that have just happened ? OF course there might be a very good internal reason to this once the film ends but while the film is entertaining - possibly for all the wrong reasons - it's never credible on even the most basic level

This incredibly cheap film is not without its entertaining moments. While America is being invaded by The Enemy, the President appears on television to assure the nation that the US military is exacting vengeance on Russia - for every atom bomb dropped on the US, three are being dropped on Russia! While this sounds comforting, it merely proves the key to Russia's success, since the Russians have already transported everything they'll need to win the war. By devoting so much energy to attacking the Russians on their own soil, the US fails to defend itself against the invading Russian army. Apparently national "defense" is an alien concept, for a nation accustomed to fighting its wars overseas.

Invasion U.S.A. (1952)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

If you listen to most reviewers they'll have you believing that this propaganda film is among the worst movies ever made. The story is pretty simple as a group of strangers are sitting in a bar when the news breaks that the Soviet Union have invaded America. Before long most of America has been hit with an Atomic Bomb.

INVASION U.S.A. is considered by many to be one of the worst movies ever made but I think that's rather extremely. There's no question that there are some very bad things in the picture but at the same time it manages to hold you attention no matter how bad things get. I think the biggest problem with the film is the fact that its budget was so low that they really weren't able to do anything good with the picture.

I say that because even though the film is only 72-minutes long, I'd say a third of that is made up of stock footage, which obviously makes the picture look cheap. There are so many scenes where it's either stock footage or projection stuff that you can't help but not be frightened by anything you're looking at. The entire point of this picture was to frighten you into thinking that the Soviet Union could strike at any moment but without the drama there's just not much here. To make matters worse, there are some unintentional funny moments including a scene where the Hoover Dam is bombed and a family gets taken out by the water.

There are some decent performances here including Gerald Mohr and Dan O'Herlihy. Character actor Tom Kennedy is also on hand playing the bartender. Another problem I had with the story is the fact that America pretty much falls without any issue. I mean, as easy as it was for us to be taken over it would be impossible for America to beat anyone. Still, INVASION U.S.A. isn't nearly the bomb some make it out to be.

To begin with, I had expected to be more engaged by this one – which I also was under the wrong impression would be a talk-fest: instead, about sixty per cent of its trim 74-minute duration is compiled of wartime stock footage (representing the potential decimation of the U.S. by invading Communist forces) – scenes of the London blitz from the celebrated Humphrey Jennings documentary FIRES WERE STARTED (1943) are supposed to stand in for the burning of New York! I wonder how Americans look at the film nowadays vis-a'-vis the events of 9/11 – which is perhaps the only reason why it ever saw the light of day on DVD in the first place!

As it stands, INVASION USA is both hysterical and unintentionally hilarious – never more so than when a car is caught in the flooding of Hoover Dam (hit by a nuclear bomb!) and a cowboy hat is seen floating on a branch as the sole remnant of its Texan owner!; Also worth mentioning are the fact that when the U.S. Senate is besieged, it's seen to be peopled merely by doddering statesmen, while the intermittent 'appearances' by the American President addressing the nation are taken from a vague solitary angle! Equally queasy is the fact that handsome leads Gerard Mohr (a cynical TV reporter) and Peggie Castle are drawn together at such a precarious time, while the middle-aged bartender keeps mixing drinks as if his life depended on it – apparently oblivious to the ongoing calamities! Needless to say, the unnamed Soviets are depicted throughout as unemotional slogan-spouting caricatures.

The best thing about the film is the brief but typically riveting performance by Dan O'Herlihy (incidentally, years later he'd appear in a genuine Cold War classic i.e FAIL SAFE [1964]) – not least in view of the twist ending brought about by his particular line of work. In the DVD supplements, much is made of the fact that the film features the two actresses who played "Superman"'s Lois Lane on TV – Noel Neill and Phyllis Coates – but their contribution is, at best, negligible!; also on hand as a newscaster is character actor William Schallert, who's said to have made more Atomic-related titles than anyone else (the top 100 such efforts compiled by "Conelrad" are listed, with a brief synopsis for each one, on the Synapse DVD itself); in an interview included on the disc, Schallert speaks of his brush with Orson Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL (1958) where he was proposed for the role later played by Maltese actor Joseph Calleia – whom Schallert mistakenly thinks was an Italian! Oh, well, it's near enough I suppose…

As can be gathered, therefore, the extras are quite nice, being pretty comprehensive about the whole Cold War aura which pervaded the first two decades or so of the post-war era (though I've only very briefly sampled the two radio programs which play back-to-back as an Audio Commentary to the film). One of the most telling comments in the extras comes from O'Herlihy himself – when he went to Russia in the late 1960s to film WATERLOO (1970), he was met by such an inefficient people that he couldn't fathom how their threat was ever taken seriously!; Noel Neill, then, overhypes the film's impact – I mean saying it blows PEARL HARBOR (2001) out of the water is not much of a feat, is it? In the end, I have to admit that when the Communist ideology (or critique thereof) was presented as a sci-fi allegory, the results were generally that much more fun