MovieChat Forums > It Conquered the World (1956) Discussion > This isn't just mindless crap!

This isn't just mindless crap!

posted 20 years ago by rabbott87
25 replies | jump to latest

After recently seeing this film, I initially thought that it was amusingly terrible- the poor effects of the alien etc.
This is hardly the film's fault though, having a 50's B-Movie budget and limited technology, but it is a meaningful film, especially given the context in which is was made.
1950's America, not long after World War 2, and there was a growing fear of a Communist overtake. This is expressed in the film, and I believe that to some extent, the alien represents Communism.
There is also a strong moral overtone throughout this film; about the importance of emotions in relationships and society. In this film there is an Orwellian feel, with the controlling party erradicating emotions for a "better world".
Most of the other people that I know who have seen this think it is just a silly piece of film that they won't ever think twice about again, which I think is a shame.
It turns out that it's more than it looks. It isn't mindless crap

[–] Bulletcatcher 19 years ago

So now I have to find it and rent it. I wonder if it's available on DVD...

I like your arguments that even though the film may not have the slickest Bruckheimer-esque production, it's still got a message.

A lot of films are that way... you just have to scratch the surface to see what's beneath.

Keep the faith.

_____________________________
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph?
I think you overestimate their chances.

[–] nhlgumby 19 years ago

You fool. This movie wasn't made on poverty row because someone had a great, original idea but couldn't get it to the MGM or Paramount execs in time. This is an exploitation film of the 1950's featuring a rehashed story of paranoia and a two cent monster. This movie has been made before, only using a different name and a different monster. This isn't some bleeding story of Cold War fear and paranoia, this is trash. Highly enjoyable if I might say myself, but nonetheless trash. It's called a B-movie because it's the second movie (or "b" movie instead of the "A" movie) of a double feature. It's not meant to be thought provoking, it's meant to entertain and for cheap.

If you want meaningful 1950's Communism hidden away in a movie, watch "On the Waterfront" with Marlon Brando, and compare that movie's message to the one of director Elia Kazan's circumstances as a witness before the House of Un-American Activities Committee. If you've ever heard of it that is.

[–] funkyfry 19 years ago

Why were you such a jerk? Saying things like "If you've ever heard of it that is". You sound like a total snob. I guess maybe you think making posts like that makes you look smart, but it actually makes you look far more pathetic than anybody.

He had an opinion, it's a valid opinion. He never said anything about it being a great idea that ended up with the B movie studio because of Hollywood's short-sightedness, I don't know where you got that BS. He just said it was a movie that has a message, and I think he's right. OK, it's more or less the same message from "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." But it's still a solid movie as a B movie. Roger Corman made some interesting movies, check out "Not of This World." If you've ever heard of it, that is.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

[–] youroldpaljim 18 years ago

I would like to point out that film historian Bill Warren had some interesting things to say about this film in his massive tome on 50's sci fi movies KEEP WATCHING THE SKIES! I recommend his entry on this film as well as the whole book since it is a very insightful, detailed, and well researched work on 1950's science fiction movies.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"Check out Not Of This World".

Yes, I think Not Of This World is a much more artistically sound movie on the more-or-less same theme. And when it comes to Corman`s "interesting" films in general, A Bucket Of Blood is another one worth seeking out - and `especially` The Intruder.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dphelan-1 18 years ago

***SPOILERS**

I cannot understand why one assumes that a B movie from the 1950's must be mindless crap. This one is not. The characters played by Lee Van Cleef and Saller Fraser are amazingly complex. Graves and Garland (always good) have the more thankless heroic parts. However, I defy anyone to not be moved when Graves discovers his wife has been taken over by the alien and that he must deal with it. Van Cleef as a conflicted but very intelligent scientist also must deal with his own emotional problems. Despite the fact that the "monster" is pretty silly-looking, this is a very good film.

[–] Strazdamonas 13 years ago

because most of them are. its same assumption as, say, people assume Americans are dumb because most of them turn out to be so.

--------------
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothing.

[–] Ironhelm38 18 years ago

It came from a planet deep in space,withstands bullets and gets taken out by a handheld blowtorch. Fun movie tho.

[–] Jaynrand 18 years ago

Have to agree with dephelan - Sally Fraser is terrific...and her demise at the hands of her husband is unexpected and shocking.

[–] hailebear2002 18 years ago

The title should be...It Conquered a Small Town For a Few Days Until We Found It!

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

The blowtorch death of this Monster always seemed a bit strange to me as well, even as another Poster mentioned. I figure it may have been a budgetary problem -- maybe the script read "flame thrower" but this was the best they could do.

Or maybe Corman could not -- or did not want to -- get a fire permit.

[–] Bob_Schuka 16 years ago

The "carrot's" batlike minions were kinda creepy though...as well as the alien voices coming over the radio.

[–] escalera-2 16 years ago

"Creepy" is a good word.

One of the disturbing -- "creepy" -- images of my youth was the Robotic ruler in the silly "Have Rocket -- Will Travel" The Three Stooges feature. Seeing it today it is easy to see that it is merely a large tricked-out box with a couple of guys inside sticking their arms through holes. But it is still a little creepy to me.

The elements you mention evoke that same sort of feeling, even after many years.

[–] highwaystar50 9 years ago

Using the torch was the only way Dr. Anderson could get close enough to the monster for him to kill it and it to kill him, thereby allowing him to pay with his life for his wife's death and all the other people who were killed due to his misguided intentions. In the movies back in those days, people paid dearly for their mistakes - not like today where they get a lawyer and end up doing some time in the grey bar hotel.
KS

[–] escalera-2 9 years ago

Being that we only have what we have, it doesn't mean a whole lot to wish it was any other way. Your explanation is best, higwaystar50.

Thanks for posting.

Please use elevator, stairs stuck between floors.

[–] gauli 15 years ago

umm.. This movie was made in the 50s. it has communist paranoia undertones, and that's somehow genius? Why would that make it more than what it is?

[–] gillmanfan2000 15 years ago

It's not so much crap as a cheapie knockoff of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers".

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zapple100 13 years ago

I got around to watching "It Conquered The World." For a "B" movie, the acting was very good. My only complaint is, I would have liked to seen more of the monster in the movie.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]