Browsed by
Category: Response Reviews

My comments on Peary’s reviews in Guide for the Film Fanatic (Simon & Schuster, 1986).

Little Shop of Horrors, The (1960)

Little Shop of Horrors, The (1960)

“Feeeeed me!”

Synopsis:
The nebbishy employee (Jonathan Haze) of an irritable flower-shop owner (Mel Welles) tries to impress his sweet co-worker Audrey (Jackie Joseph) by naming a new hybrid plant after her — but Seymour (Haze) soons learns that “Audrey, Jr.” lusts for human blood, and he becomes caught in a vicious cycle of securing his flesh-eating plant with fresh food.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Black Comedy
  • Dentists
  • Dick Miller Films
  • Jack Nicholson Films
  • Killer Plants
  • Roger Corman Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “genuinely funny cult classic” (directed by Roger Corman in “just two days”, and written by Charles B. Griffith) is “a low-budget gem”: a “spoof of every mad-scientist picture in which blood is needed to keep some experimental creature alive, and of every fifties sci-fi film in which there is a giant mutation, and of numerous horror films”. He points out its similarity to “Jerry Lewis comedies, with Seymour as the man-child with an IQ of seven, a good heart, a lousy personality, and work habits that drive his boss crazy”. He also notes the connection to Dragnet in the hilariously “terse, unemotional dialogue between… two detectives investigating missing persons”. Peary argues (and I agree) that the film “works on its own terms as [a] good, absurd comedy”, and that “the cast is marvelous — they might pass as a Yiddish repertory company which has been working with the script for years instead of doing it while it was being written”. The storyline stays consistently outlandish, filled with one unexpected scene after the other — including the infamous “dentist scene” featuring the “little-known Jack Nicholson as the squeaky-voiced masochist”:

… visits from “a low-keyed flower eater” (Dick Miller) which presumably are intended to “counter the man-eating flower”:

… “Seymour’s visits with his hypochondriac mother (Myrtle Vail)”:

… and each of Seymour’s unintentional killings — er, scavenger hunts for food.

LSOH was eventually made into an off-Broadway musical, which itself was turned into a 1986 film by Frank Oz (listed in the back of Peary’s book).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • The creative opening credits
  • Many enjoyably ludicrous scenes and moments
  • Fine performances from the entire cast
  • Charles B. Griffith’s script: “It’s a finger of speech!”

Must See?
Yes, as a cult classic.

Categories

  • Cult Movie

Links:

These Three (1936)

These Three (1936)

“They’ve got secrets, Grandma — funny secrets!”

Synopsis:
When the spoiled granddaughter (Bonita Granville) of a socialite (Alma Kruger) becomes angry at her boarding-school headmistresses (Merle Oberon and Miriam Hopkins) and seeks revenge, she spreads malicious lies about a love triangle between Oberon’s fiance (Joel McCrea) and Hopkins, and involves her innocent classmate (Marcia Mae Jones) in the deception. Meanwhile, Hopkins’ self-absorbed, histrionic aunt (Catherine Doucet) does nothing to help her niece during the time of crisis.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Boarding School
  • Bonita Granville Films
  • Evil Kids
  • Joel McCrea Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Merle Oberon Films
  • Miriam Hopkins Films
  • Morality Police
  • Play Adaptation
  • Revenge
  • Teachers
  • Walter Brennan Films
  • William Wyler Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “compelling adaptation of Lillian Hellman’s play The Children’s Hour” still “seems bold” despite the fact that “Hellman did away with the play’s lesbian theme”. He notes that the film’s “strength lies in its exploration of several interesting females (young, middle-aged, and old) and their relationships with one another: we can compare the friendship of Oberon and Hopkins with that of Granville and her outcast pal Jones” (though I would argue their power-driven interactions hardly constitute a ‘friendship’) “and the [strained] relationship between Hopkins and… Doucet with that of Granville and Kruger”. (McCrea is the “only male with a large part”.)

I agree with Peary that this probably represents one of Oberon’s “finest performances”, and the rest of the cast is top-notch as well — most notably Doucet as “Aunt Lily”:

… and Granville and Jones in key juvenile roles. Indeed, Granville’s sociopathic Mary Tilford gives The Bad Seed‘s Rhoda Penmark a run for her money (not an easy feat), and Jones effectively radiates the soul-crushing fear felt by a young girl caught in the grips of a vicious bully.

Note: Director William Wyler re-adapted the play in 1961 as The Children’s Hour, starring Shirley MacLaine and Audrey Hepburn, and utilizing “the lesbian theme” — but many feel this earlier outing is the better adaptation.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bonita Granville as Mary Tilford
  • Marcia Mae Jones as Rosalie
  • Catherine Doucet as Aunt Lily
  • Gregg Toland’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as an early Wyler classic.

Categories

  • Important Director

Links:

I Married a Monster From Outer Space (1958)

I Married a Monster From Outer Space (1958)

“Is pride something monsters don’t understand?”

Synopsis:
A newlywed (Gloria Talbott) whose husband (Tom Tryon) suddenly acts emotionless learns that he has been possessed by an alien whose dying species hopes to propagate by marrying women on Earth — but no one will believe her story.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Living Nightmare
  • Marital Problems
  • Newlyweds
  • “No One Believes Me!”
  • Possession
  • Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “intelligent, atmospheric, subtly made, deliberately paced sci-fi thriller” is one “of the best of the fifties ‘paranoia’ films”. He points out that director Gene Fowler, Jr.’s history as “an editor [for] Fritz Lang” is shown through “his use of shadows and bizarre camera angles to heighten tension” as well as “his ‘invisible’ editing (time passes on the screen, although it appears that the camera never shuts down).” He notes that Talbott — “an excellent heroine for sci-fi and horror films” — “gives a solid performance, exhibiting intelligence and a rare combination of strength and vulnerability”:

but he argues that “Tryon, years before becoming a best-selling author, is better as the alien than as the human counterpart”.

(The fact that Tryon was gay in real life, thus truly lacking a desire for sexual intimacy with women, adds an interesting spin to this assertion.) To that end, some viewers have pointed out the subtle “gay undertones” to the film, given that Talbott is continuously sexually frustrated (she can’t get Tryon interested in sex or reproduction) and the men are more eager to spend time with each other than with their wives. Finally, I agree with Peary that this film’s “outrageous title is unsuited” for it: Tryon and his fellow aliens are devious and determined, but not particularly monstrous in their actions; why not call it I Married an Alien From Outer Space instead?

Note: The final shot in the film (of Tryon) seems inexplicable, but I suppose it was a necessary if illogical concession for a happy ending.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Effectively atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a well-made entry in a specific genre and era. Discussed at length in Peary’s Cult Movies book.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Coma (1978)

Coma (1978)

“Medicine isn’t perfect — we all know that, don’t we?”

Synopsis:
When her friend (Lois Chiles) goes into a coma during a routine operation, a medical resident (Genevieve Bujold) begins an investigation that causes everyone around her — including her boyfriend (Michael Douglas) and supervisor (Richard Widmark) — to worry she is becoming neurotic and unbalanced; but she quickly learns her concerns are legitimate, and struggles to get anyone at all to believe that healthy patients at her hospital are being deliberately killed and sent to an institute for unknown reasons.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Amateur Sleuths
  • Doctors and Nurses
  • Genevieve Bujold Films
  • Michael Douglas Films
  • “No One Believes Me!”
  • Richard Widmark Films
  • Rip Torn Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “Nancy Drew-like murder mystery” — “based on Robin Cook’s best-seller” — offers French-Canadian Genevieve Bujold “her best role in an American film” as Dr. Susan Wheeler, “an unusually appealing heroine”. He notes that the film itself “is a real nail-biter”, with director Michael Crichton putting “us in a setting where we should feel secure… and suddenly things go wrong”. Indeed, it’s genuinely freaky how plausible a scenario like this one actually is, given that we have little choice but to trust that doctors have our best interests at heart, and to accept tragic “accidents” as part of the price we pay for the advantages of modern medicine. Without unusually plucky and persistent people like Dr. Wheeler, how would we find out what our supposed medical saviors are up to?

In his review, Peary writes that while the “hospital atmosphere and operation-room scenes” are “very true to life”, “you’ll have to suspend your disbelief at every turn” — which is somewhat true but not really a problem, given how innately appealing Bujold is. (Cinematic heroines almost always manage to discover elusive information and escape by the skin of their teeth, don’t they?) Meanwhile, I disagree with Peary’s assertion that the “dialogue relating to Bujold being a woman in a man’s world” is “now trite”: regardless of how gender relations currently function in modern hospitals (and I’m sure they’re still far from ideal), there is no doubt that female doctors in the 1970s dealt with many of the patronizing and sexist attitudes Dr. Wheeler faces but refuses to accept.

Note: Watch for Tom Selleck in a pre-“Magnum, P.I.” role as a doomed patient and Ed Harris in a small role as a pathology resident.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Genevieve Bujold as Dr. Wheeler
  • Many tense, exciting scenes
  • Excellent sets

Must See?
Yes, as an enjoyable and gripping thriller.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

20 Million Miles To Earth (1957)

20 Million Miles To Earth (1957)

“Why is it always, always, so costly for man to move from the present to the future?”

Synopsis:
When a spaceship crashes into the Mediterranean, two fishermen (George Khoury and Don Orlando) and a boy (Bart Braverman) rescue two of the passengers, of whom only one (William Hopper) survives. While a beautiful doctor-in-training (Joan Taylor) treats Hopper’s wounds, Braverman secretly sells a Venusian specimen that washed ashore to Taylor’s zoologist-grandfather (Frank Puglia) — but once the creature hatches, it soon grows into an enormous monster that terrorizes Rome.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Mutant Monsters
  • Ray Harryhausen Films
  • Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
Primarily known for showcasing “the first of special-effects expert Ray Harryhausen’s Dynamation creatures”, this “lively film” features “an impressive monster — one that would serve as [a] model for future Harryhausen creations”. Unfortunately, beyond the admittedly impressive animation — including a lengthy finale in which the monster ravages Rome (chosen as the location because Harryhausen wanted to take a vacation there!) — the film itself lacks a narrative leg to stand on. It’s truly a “monster flick”, with a misunderstood creature vainly attempting to elude capture while the film’s handsome male and female protagonists inevitably fall in ’50s love (after hating each other first, naturally). The most interesting scene takes place right away, as a Sicilian fisherman (uncredited Khoury) bravely insists to his companion (cowardly Orlando, also uncredited) that they must enter the sinking spaceship to locate any survivors; why in the world is Khoury’s noble character immediately discarded and forgotten? But, as DVD Savant argues, “a monster movie with a good monster is a good monster movie”, and one (perhaps) shouldn’t take the movie “to task for its cinematic deficiencies.” Perhaps.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Effective “dynamation” by Ray Harryhausen
  • Good use of Rome locales

Must See?
No, though of course it’s recommended for Harryhausen fans.

Links:

Born to Dance (1936)

Born to Dance (1936)

“He’s got a smile like concentrated vodka!”

Synopsis:
A trio of Navy sailors — Ted (James Stewart), ‘Mush’ (Buddy Ebsen), and ‘Gunny’ (Sid Silvers) — romance three girls while on leave: Stewart falls for an aspiring dancer (Eleanor Powell), Ebsen flirts unsuccessfully with a singer named Peppy (Frances Langford), and Silvers attempts to reunite with the woman (Una Merkel) he married four years earlier after a marathon dance session, not knowing they have a child (Juanita Quigley) together. Stewart and Powell’s romance gets more complicated when the scheming publicist (Alan Dinehart) for a Broadway diva (Virginia Bruce) cooks up a plan to have her fall for Stewart, who rescued her beloved Pekingese dog while she was visiting the sailors’ ship and schmoozing with its adoring captain (Raymond Walburn).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aspiring Stars
  • Dancers
  • Jimmy Stewart Films
  • Musicals
  • Romance
  • Roy Del Ruth Films
  • Sailors

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “carefree Depression Era musical” — directed by Roy Del Ruth and starring tap dancing legend Eleanor Powell — “is corny and campy, yet enjoyable”. He points out that the story is “silly” (see the synopsis above) and possesses an “unconvincing plot twist” (most definitely true!), but notes that “there’s some okay comedy”, a “fine, varied Cole Porter score” (including “I’ve Got You Under My Skin”), and “absolutely terrific… tap routines” by Powell.

Unfortunately, while Powell is pretty and earnest, she isn’t the most nuanced of actors, and gravitates towards one facial expression (smiling, toothy mouth wide open) while dancing; Peary notes somewhat uncharitably that “when standing still” she “looks like she’d be a crummy Amateur Hour contestant”. But Stewart (apparently suggested for the part by Porter) is fine in one of his earliest roles:

and gets to warble “Easy to Love”.

Note: Of interest is the brief but memorably loopy scene with a “switchboard operator” (Helen Troy) “who anticipated by thirty years Lily Tomlin’s Ernestine:”

[describing Jimmy Stewart] “Oh, say — guess who I seen at Club Continental last night? Lucy James with that sailor she met through a Pekingese. Believe me, he’s a sea-goin’ thrill if I ever seen one. What’s he like? Well, tall — sort of the answer to a maiden’s prayer on stilts. Honest, he must be six feet four, and that’s just two inches shorter than a totem pole. Oh, but he’s got a smile like concentrated vodka! Vodka? Oh, it’s a Japanese drink made out of panther blood, I think.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Powell’s dancing


  • Fine cinematography and Art Deco sets


  • A couple of fun comedic interludes
  • Cole Porter’s score

Must See?
No, though it’s worth viewing simply as Powell’s iconic flick.

Links:

Day the Earth Stood Still, The (1951)

Day the Earth Stood Still, The (1951)

“I am fearful when I see people substituting fear for reason.”

Synopsis:
An alien named Klaatu (Michael Rennie) and his bodyguard-robot Gort (Lock Martin) land in Washington D.C. hoping to peacefully warn the Earth’s leaders that internecine violence will lead to the planet’s annihilation. When Rennie is immediately attacked, he goes undercover to learn more about the human race, befriending a widow (Patricia Neal) and her son (Billy Gray) as well as a brilliant scientist (Sam Jaffe) — but when Neal’s jealous fiance (Hugh Marlowe) learns Rennie’s true identity, he will stop at nothing to alert the authorities.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Cold War
  • Hugh Marlowe Films
  • Michael Rennie Films
  • Mistaken Identities
  • Patricia Neal Films
  • Peacemakers
  • Ray Harryhausen Films
  • Robert Wise Films
  • Sam Jaffe Films
  • Science Fiction

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “extremely well-directed and -acted adult film” — Hollywood’s second alien invasion flick of the 1950s after Howard Hawks’ The Thing (From Another Planet) (1951) — features a “literate script” by Edmund H. North (“adapting a story by Harry Bates”), and an “excellent”, theremin-heavy “dramatic score by Bernard Herrman”. However, he says he would like to “exchange some of the moralizing for a couple more exciting scenes”, and notes that he doesn’t “know what to make of Klaatu’s peace plan”, given that it forces humans to “let robots like Gort patrol earth and keep the peace” as if we were grounded teenagers. He posits that the “most suspenseful scene” is the one in which “frightened Neal bravely [goes] to Gort with a message from Klaatu: ‘Klaatu barada nikto!'” — a line which remains one of the most famous in the annals of sci-fi cinema.

I’m ultimately a bigger fan of this cult flick than Peary: I like its intelligence, its deliberate pacing, and the crispness of Leo Tover’s atmospheric black-and-white cinematography (which is especially gorgeous in Blu-Ray). Unlike Anne Francis’s Altaira in Forbidden Planet (1956), Neal is a refreshingly savvy and nuanced female protagonist:

and Rennie is perfectly cast as an ultra-rational yet compassionate alien attempting to understand humans’ “illogical” bent towards violence.

The storyline may be a bit heavy in moralizing — with Rennie’s “Mr. Carpenter” clearly meant to symbolize a Jesus-like savior — but truthfully, we deserve it, given that our current world situation is nearly as dire now as during the Cold War. Thankfully, the film’s numerous “inconsistencies” — i.e., the fact that “Gort, a ten-foot metal Golem, scorches his way out of a solid block of plastic, marches across a major city, burns down the wall of a jail and carries kaput Klaatu back to the Mall – and nobody sees him!” — “only become obvious after repeated viewings”; see DVD Savant’s review for this example and others.

Note: This film was remade in 2008 with Keanu Reeves but I haven’t seen that version and probably won’t.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Michael Rennie as Klaatu
  • Patricia Neal as Helen
  • Fine, precise direction by Wise
  • Leo Tover’s excellent b&w cinematography
  • Ray Harryhausen’s impressive special effects
  • Good use of Washington D.C. locales
  • Bernard Herrmann’s theremin-heavy score

Must See?
Yes, both for its historical value and as a classic of the genre.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Historically Relevant

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Forbidden Planet (1956)

Forbidden Planet (1956)

“The fool, the meddling idiot! As though his ape’s brain could contain the secrets of the Krell!”

Synopsis:
In the 23rd century, the crew leader (Leslie Nielsen) of an interplanetary cruiser is surprised to find that a scientist (Walter Pidgeon), his daughter (Anne Francis), and their robot Robby are the sole inhabitants on the planet Altair-IV. While falling in love with Francis, Nielsen learns that Pidgeon has tapped into the brain-boosting equipment left behind by the planet’s extinct Krell population, and has unwittingly created a monster of lethal proportions.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anne Francis Films
  • Robots
  • Science Fiction
  • Scientists
  • Space Exploration
  • Walter Pidgeon Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that while “several science fiction film of the fifties are more intelligent, clever, suspenseful, economical, original, [and] witty” than this “first SF film… made in glorious color and Cinemascope”, none was “more influential”, given that it was “the only SF movie of the period to succeed in giving the genre a long-denied tag of respectability within the industry”, and “represented the first time a major studio (MGM) released an SF film that was meant to be a top-of-the-line production”. He points out, however, that while the “picture certainly has an interesting, intelligent premise”, the script itself (by Cyril Hume) is “very trite [and] juvenile”, the “direction by Fred Wilcox lacks excitement, the acting is stiff, and the crew-cutted, always snickering, obedient, white, WASPish soldiers are more fitting for the dull Eisenhower Era than the 23rd century”. He further argues that the film’s worst mistake may be “having [the robot] Robby (who has amazing power) relegated to comic relief” rather than, for instance, joining in “during the climactic Id vs. Morbius scene”.

While I’m annoyed by Robby — his interactions with a tippling cook (Earl Holliman) are especially groan-worthy — I actually believe the film’s worst error is its lack of (strong) female characters. Forbidden Planet immediately and unambiguously fails the Bechdel Test, given that there is only one female character (Francis) who is thus unable to talk to another female about anything, let alone a topic other than men. Indeed, nearly all of Francis’s dialogue centers ON men — from her growing understanding of what this “sexual attraction” thing is all about, to which man she will (inevitably) end up attached to, to how she can dress in a way that will make the men more comfortable, etc. She’s ultimately little more than skimpily dressed eye candy.

Of minor interest is the fact that Forbidden Planet‘s storyline is loosely based on Shakespeare’s The Tempest — though we never fully understand why Morbius is so protective of his daughter, given that the “Freudian-incestuous elements are toned down.” Once the narrative centers on Nielsen’s exploration of Altair-IV and his growing understanding of Pidgeon’s history on the planet, however, we immediately become drawn in — thanks in large part to the truly “marvelous design of Altair-IV and the Krell underground chambers”, as well as some nifty special effects. Also wonderfully innovative is the “electronic music by Louis and Bebe Barron”. Regardless of its flaws, film fanatics will likely want to check this one out at least once, given its popularity and historical importance.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine futuristic sets

  • Impressive special effects
  • Good use of widescreen Technicolor cinematography
  • Walter Pidgeon as Morbius
  • Louis and Bebe Barron’s electronic soundtrack

Must See?
Yes, for its cult and historical status.

Categories

  • Cult Movie
  • Historically Relevant

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

This Island Earth (1955)

This Island Earth (1955)

“It is indeed typical that you Earth people refuse to believe in the superiority of any world but your own.”

Synopsis:
A scientist (Rex Reason) puts together a device made from highly advanced electronic parts and soon finds himself communicating with a high-foreheaded man named Exeter (Jeff Morrow), who brings him to a mansion in Georgia where other scientists — including beautiful Dr. Adams (Faith Domergue) — are working together. Soon Reason and Domergue are transported to the planet of Metaluna, where they learn the real reason behind Exeter’s visit to Earth.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Science Fiction
  • Scientists
  • World Domination

As I was in the middle of writing this review, I clicked on The New York Times’ daily headlines and saw this news of Rex Reason’s passing. RIP, Rex.

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary writes, this “colorful, imaginative, gadget-laden sci-fi” flick — based on a “novel by Raymond F. Jones” — features “many fine special effects and some impressive art design of the alien planet”. It’s hokey and pulpy in many ways — starting with hunky “Rex Reason” (his real name) playing a chisel-jawed pilot/scientist with a velvety baritone voice, and continuing with the laughably high-foreheaded aliens (trying to pass as humans??) and even more laughably huge-brained mutant monsters, which “are around for a few moments of suspense [and] laughs”. But everyone plays their roles straight, and we can’t help getting caught up in the interstellar drama of it all. According to IMDb, this film has been referenced countless times (including a snippet shown in E.T.), and DVD Savant notes that it “has the distinction of being the first 50s Sci Fi picture to be given a thorough genre analysis, courtesy of Raymond Durgnat in his 1967 book Films and Feelings.”

Note: This Island Earth is perhaps best known by modern audiences as the basis for Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie (1996), which I haven’t yet seen.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine special effects and art design



Must See?
Yes. While not a certified classic, this remains a colorful and unique early sci-fi outing.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956)

Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956)

“When an armed and threatening power lands uninvited in our capitol, we don’t meet it with tea and cookies.”

Synopsis:
While returning from their honeymoon, a scientist (Hugh Marlowe) and his new wife (Joan Taylor) spot a flying saucer and soon learn that a fleet of aliens are intending to take over the Earth.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Aliens
  • Hugh Marlowe Films
  • Ray Harryhausen Films
  • Science Fiction
  • World Domination

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “enjoyable, flashy science fiction” film features “some spectacular special effects by Ray Harryhausen”, particularly during the “film’s climax” in which “alien rays shatter some of D.C.’s best-known buildings”. There’s not much complexity to the plot (the primary goal is “to come up with a weapon that will stop” the aliens) or the characters (Taylor’s role as Marlowe’s adoring new wife feels especially dated), but as Richard Scheib notes, the script (written in part by Curt Siodmak):

… comes packed with all sorts of novel inventions and devices – forcefields, room-sized computers, a device that indexes all the information inside a human head, the aliens in their blank metal suits with helmets that are revealed to operate by amplifying the senses, rayguns and flashing Van Der Graaf accelerators, [and] even a muddled suggestion of relativity theory at one point.

Most enjoyable, though, are Harryhausen’s surprisingly “realistic” flying saucers — they’re the primary reason to check this one out.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Harryhausen’s impressive special effects
  • Effective cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as an iconic alien invasion flick from the 1950s.

Categories

  • Representative Film

Links: