Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Yash Wade Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Royalcourtier 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.

Theo Robertson 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

bkoganbing Invasion USA must have been Joe McCarthy's favorite movie. Had he become president this would have been required viewing, indoctrination for kids from Kindergarten level on up.The film depicts the Russian invasion of the good old USA from the denizens of Tim's bar in New York City. Among those denizens who meet on a fateful afternoon are TV commentator Gerald Mohr, party girl Peggie Castle, cattle rancher Erik Blythe, industrialist Robert Bice, a member of the House of Representatives and a mysterious stranger who functions in this bizarre tale like Hickey from The Iceman Cometh. In fact the whole thing is like Eugene O'Neill if it were directed by Ed Wood. The stranger is Dan O'Herlihy and Tim is played by Tom Kennedy.While we've been soft capitalists the Communists have been fanatically busy making preparations for war. And they strike through Alaska as Sarah Palin watched from her window. There's no end to their trickery, the invading troops have been schooled in English and are wearing our uniforms, better to confuse the capitalist tools. But when a strike force comes to invade the Capitol Building itself and mow down Congress, an alert National Guardsman questions one of them from an Illinois based unit about the Chicago Cubs. What American doesn't know about them?Through all this invasion Mohr and Castle get down to some serious kanoodling. You've got to have a romance even in the time of our nation's greatest peril.My guess is that the players involved took these roles because they wanted to make themselves blacklist proof. They couldn't all have been that desperate for a paycheck.As for the conclusion, think Dallas and remember to keep giving the military industrial complex what it needs.

MartinHafer It's a darn shame that INVASION USA was such a poorly made film, as the film did have a couple things in its favor. First, the idea for the film of a Soviet invasion of America, while rather ridiculous, was also pretty interesting. It's an interesting "what if" sort of concept. Second, while many of the "actors" were amazingly lame, there were a couple quality actors in the cast as well. While not household names, Gerald Mohr and Dan O'Herlihy could definitely actor and both had wonderful voices. Despite a script written by marsupials, they tried their best and gave the film a tiny bit of respectability. Unfortunately, everything else in the film was such a mess that these factors manage to keep the overall score to a 2! Yes, folks, it's THAT bad! The film begins with an incredibly obvious scene in a bar where the people all seem more like caricatures than real people. Each person there has a variety of excuses not to do their best to protect America from foreign devils. However, to teach them all a lesson, a mystic (O'Herlihy) uses mass hypnosis to show they what it would be like if their beloved nation were destroyed due to their indifference.The biggest problem with the film is the budget. It's obvious they had very little money, so at least half to two-thirds of the film consisted of stock footage of an "invasion". Many times, photographs of US cities were shown and then explosions were cheaply superimposed over top of it--and looked nothing like an exploding city. As for the action footage, the trouble was that much of the stock film was hopelessly out of date by 1952, as much of it was from WWII. In fact, the naval footage is almost all from the War in the Pacific--and featured Japanese planes that were now obsolete making kamikaze attacks on ships. Apart from this, with only a few grainy clips of MIG-15 fighter planes, the rest of the clips all showed American airplanes supposedly attacking America! So, the "enemy" consisted mostly of B-29/B-50 bombers (the B-50 is an updated version of the 29) as well as Saber and Starfighter jets. This was never explained and telling who was who was practically impossible. However, with the footage of "enemy" soldiers, the film explained that the reason they looked EXACTLY like American soldiers was because they were deliberately doing that to confuse us!! Oh, and by the way, the reason I say "enemy" is that although the film obviously is about a Soviet attack on America, not once were these enemy nations named--a very strange omission to say the least.Based on what I've said so far, you'd probably assume the film isn't worth watching. Well, that might be true for the average viewer, but there is a certain silly appeal in watching it. In other words, the film is so bad that it's entertaining because you might just find yourself laughing at either the film's incompetence or how over the top it becomes near the end. In particular, you just have to see the scene where the pretty lady is attacked by slobbering perverted soldiers--I know I found myself laughing out loud!! By the way, the DVD for this film is excellent. I like the way it was packaged as well as the extras. While the interviews with some of the actors were done in a rather cheesy manner, some of their insights are interesting and it's very surreal to see that Noell Neal actually seemed to like the film and think it was well made!! Also, a short film from 1962, RED NIGHTMARE, is actually better made and a much better example of the so-called "Red Scare" era than the featured film.FYI--For trivia nuts out there, this film has small parts for BOTH Lois Lanes from the 1950s TV show--Noel Neill and Phyllis Coates, though they do not act together in the movie. Look closely, though, as each part is rather small. Neill is the lady at the airline desk and Coates is the wife of the rancher who almost immediately snuffs it when she enters the screen.