IMDb RATING
3.5/10
1.8K
YOUR RATING
A group of people at a bar witness the unfolding events of a Soviet invasion of the USA.A group of people at a bar witness the unfolding events of a Soviet invasion of the USA.A group of people at a bar witness the unfolding events of a Soviet invasion of the USA.
Jack Carr
- Plant Worker
- (uncredited)
John Crawford
- Man in Bar
- (uncredited)
Richard Eyer
- Mulfory's Son
- (uncredited)
Franklyn Farnum
- Man from Omaha
- (uncredited)
Joe Gilbert
- Tourist in Line
- (uncredited)
Featured reviews
It's worth noting that this ultra-low-budget splicing-together of unmatched stock footage was mocked and panned even in its own day, so it should not be viewed seriously as an accurate document of Cold War paranoia. Even in the depths of the Red Scare, most Americans weren't stupid enough to be scared by crap like this. It was more like a super-cheapie public service announcement for the military-industrial complex. If you fast forward through most of the stock WW2 battle scenes, which are endless, and slow down for the "story" scenes, it's a mildly amusing exercise in what-if? science fiction -- doofy and utterly implausible, but good for some wry smiles. I mean, you gotta love that the hypnotist fortune teller is named Ohman. It's also kind of interesting that many, many more "serious," bigger-budget invasion and terrorist- plot films since this one have followed a pretty similar storyline, if more competently. Add the general atmosphere of paranoia post-9/11, and this thing is worth a look, with the FF button to the metal.
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.
* 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.
Wow what a movie!! You thought Ed Wood or Bert I Gordon where stock footage happy. Alfred Green had probably no budget but a large supply of WW2 footage!! "Make a story around this war film, it'll go to the History Channel if we don't use it!!" (Al Green was probably psychic) It's not much of a film otherwise, acting is dull, characters are the type you don't really care about and the whole thing stinks of propaganda. Well it was the cold war. MST had fun with this and deservingly so!! Does this film exist in non-mst form?? Probably so but I do not recommend without Mike and the bots. This film also features the two Lois Lanes from the old Superman series. Hey this would be a great double feature with Jungle Goddess (featuring George Reeves) Enjoy!!
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.
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.
I heard about this movie, Invasion USA, many years ago but it wasn't until this week (as a matter of fact today) that I finally got the movie to add to my video collection.
The primary reason that I had wanted to see it was that both Noel Neill and Phyllis Coates had parts in this movie. You ask, who are these actresses. Both of them played Lois Lane in the Adventures of Superman. Noell Neill played the original Lois Lane in the original Superman with Kirk Alyn in 1948.
I had heard that there was some sort of scuffle between them on this set and I wanted to see how professional actresses can overcome personal feelings between each other.
Well, the scenes that they were involved in didn't even have any connection with each other. Noell Neill was a ticket agent and had maybe 2 minutes on screen. Phyliss Coates had approximately the same amount of time but was in Colorado trying to fight the waters of the Colorado river after Boulder Dam was bombed by the "enemy".
If the United States, which is supposed to be a major super power, gets overrun in maybe a month, is really in essence, a paper tiger.
We saw some evidence of a weak and unprepared USA first at Pearl Harbor, the Vietnam war, and then September 11, 2001 in New York City.
I look up to the USA as the world protector and the champion of freedom, and I hope that the film Invasion USA will ALWAYS be classified as fiction.
The primary reason that I had wanted to see it was that both Noel Neill and Phyllis Coates had parts in this movie. You ask, who are these actresses. Both of them played Lois Lane in the Adventures of Superman. Noell Neill played the original Lois Lane in the original Superman with Kirk Alyn in 1948.
I had heard that there was some sort of scuffle between them on this set and I wanted to see how professional actresses can overcome personal feelings between each other.
Well, the scenes that they were involved in didn't even have any connection with each other. Noell Neill was a ticket agent and had maybe 2 minutes on screen. Phyliss Coates had approximately the same amount of time but was in Colorado trying to fight the waters of the Colorado river after Boulder Dam was bombed by the "enemy".
If the United States, which is supposed to be a major super power, gets overrun in maybe a month, is really in essence, a paper tiger.
We saw some evidence of a weak and unprepared USA first at Pearl Harbor, the Vietnam war, and then September 11, 2001 in New York City.
I look up to the USA as the world protector and the champion of freedom, and I hope that the film Invasion USA will ALWAYS be classified as fiction.
Did you know
- TriviaThe "enemy" aircraft in the first wave of attacks are American F-80 Shooting Stars, C-119 Flying Boxcars, & B-29/B-50 Superfortresses, complete with American markings. While the Soviet Air Force did have a bomber that was an almost exact copy of a B-29 that was forced to land in Siberia during WWII they did not have C-119s and F-80s.
- GoofsThe Soviet bombers shown dropping the atomic bombs are in fact American B-29 superfortresses. In fact in the American retaliation raids the same B-29 planes are shown. This reveals stock aircraft footage was used for both.
- Quotes
Mr. Ohman: I think America wants new leadership.
Vince Potter: What kind of leadership do you suggest?
Mr. Ohman: I suggest a wizard.
Vince Potter: A what?
Mr. Ohman: A wizard, like Merlin, who could kill his enemies by wishing them dead. That's the way we like to beat Communism now, by wishing it dead.
- ConnectionsEdited into Robot Monster (1953)
- How long is Invasion, U.S.A.?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $127,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 13m(73 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content