Watch It Came from Outer Space For Free

I love this movie so much

An unexpected masterpiece

Absolutely brilliant

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Some of the best early sci-fi movies about aliens didn't have scenes with scary monsters or ugly creatures. They were built mostly on suspense, anxiety and anticipation. Films such as "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" of 1956 had superb scripts and good acting that kept the audience on the edge of their seats through most of the film. Hollywood had difficulty creating its creatures in the early years. They couldn't look amateurishly funny or that would defeat the scare attraction of the film. Some of the early monsters were so bad that they were funny, when finally seen. So, to get around that, the studios usually had good screenplays that incorporated the right music and background sounds to create the suspense and scary aspects. "It Came from Outer Space" introduces an alien of some sort that apparently is quite grotesque. At least, judging from the frightened looks of the people who confront it in this film. Richard Carlson, as John Putnam isn't overpowered by a monster, but at his request, the alien reveals itself to him as it really appears. Only, we in the audience don't get to see it. Well, we do get to see it somewhat from the alien's side of an eyeball looking out. That's a little funny in itself. But the script isn't very good for this film. The music seemed hokey or didn't seem to fit at times. Carlson has to overact to carry the plot along at times. And that just further takes away from the scare factor. The result is the loss of suspense half an hour into the movie, and a rather blasé film that seems to drag on after that. The scare factor is all but gone, and the audience is left just wondering what the alien actually looks like.There are any number of good sci-fi films of the mid-20th century to see. There also are many cheap "B" films that have almost comical monsters. "It Came from Outer Space" comes close to the second group.

I recently found this movie on Netflix and was so excited about it. I've always liked these kinds of old horror/alien movies and this looked to be very entertaining.My first thoughts upon hearing the narration and seeing the desert landscape was that it reminded me of an episode of The Twilight Zone (before it's time). On the other hand, the true appearance of the alien and its abilities reminded me of the creature from The Thing. I thought the bubble-like perspective of the alien itself was also very interesting.This was a great movie if you consider when it was made and the lack of advances in technology at the time. Unfortunately, the sub par acting and the lackluster story line made this movie a little hard to enjoy. Although this wasn't a very long movie, I still feel like it could've probably been shortened into a Twilight Zone episode (without a major twist).With all this being said, I still feel that this is a good movie to watch. If not for it's interesting perspective on an alien encounter, for the interesting atmosphere and dialogue that only a movie from the 1950's could produce.I really did enjoy watching this movie, even in 2017, and I feel that since its initial release, it has been enjoyed by many others.

John Putnam (Richard Carlson) is a writer, who has fallen back to the peace of the countryside near the town of Sand Rock in Arizona to search for an appropriate atmosphere to forward his work. One of his few acquaintances is schoolteacher Ellen Fields (Barbara Rush). When a meteorite crashes in the close vicinity of his home the duo are first to arrive on spot to witness what seems to be the remains of a crashed spaceship. After an explosion coves the craft with a landslide no one is left to believe their version, instead being ridiculed by townspeople, including the local sheriff (played by Charles Drake). Meanwhile someone (or something) is roaming the countryside and capturing unsuspecting town folk...Based on a story by the everlasting Ray Bradbury the basic premise still works well over time. Despite the overcooked acting - with the sole exception of Carlson - and outdated special effects the story itself stands the test of time, giving it a welcome poignancy, however dissipated by the ageing form of the movie. Never a true sci-fi classic it leaves too much to be desired in terms of realism, instead coming off like a staged production of the period, where certain traits acceptable then no longer ring nicely to modern day audiences. With a mildly sleepy pacing and some overly camp resolution the full potential of the Bradbury source material would need to be remade to become relevant. That said various movies have touched upon similar themes, which turn issues of us / them on their heads with much more astute delivery, thus possibly making the whole concept a less complex and equally fading product of the 1950s sci-fi saucer craze. Intent as not being as cheesy as many movies of the period it is ultimately let down by the acceptable norm of the time, despite its much more intriguing plotting.

There are two ways to watch this, in fact most any film. This is modeled after the way you 'watch' life. Is life merely a backdrop that you were brought in to 'star'? Do you make any of it happen? Is there a consciousness that narrates and can therefore transcend that narration? Most people carry on living, satisfied by complete dramatic immersion in their story as well as the films they happen to see.The ordinary way is that everything on screen is within hard walls of a single reality, everything clearly mapped. In our case, the monster from outer space is real, its powers real. Everything else in this reality of the film will seem erratic and unbelievable, this is the converse effect. It was probably made that way, but there's no reason why you should let that limit you.Another mode starts with you recognizing the film is not simply events that happen. There's a narrator present. You center yourself to where life is believable enough to be your own, in our case young lovers mulling about marriage and future happiness in the comfort of their spacious desert home, everything ideal. And you let your eye float in the direction of the narrator's world expanding beyond his story.Sure enough, there is a narrator here - the film opens with the man narrating to us about a clear future, a clear story ahead of them.He is a journalist and amateur astrologer, a man obsessed with both the 'story' and 'looking'. She is a happy-go-lucky creature dreaming of a blissful family life. The question that nags at both of them is, will he be able to settle down? Is it going to work between them?That is when he decides to give her through his telescope a glimpse of what his nightsky really is like, maybe he is unsure himself. What happens then? Fire rains down from the skies, the product of vision from (inner) space.He is the only safe witness that there's a ship and creature in the crater, obsessed with the 'reality' of his story which both military and locals wave off as 'science fiction'. The pragmatic sheriff worries, as any friend or relation would, that the girl has fallen for an unstable guy. And in spite of what she knows of him, pursuing the 'reality' of that story reveals him to be volatile and obsessive.So now there is a second self out in that desert, a second eye - you will note the monster in the early stages as a single hypnotic eye surrounded by fog.Compare to that effect the pov shot that opens the film, this is where as our guy narrates about a happy life ahead, we crest a hill to a view of the sleepy small town below, to the monster's pov that later in the film similarly crests a hill to a view of barren desert. The contrast is between settled life and the wilderness of uncharted soul.More: the creature can take on the appearance of any man, but in a way that wives and girlfriends complain to the sheriff that 'they are not the same'. They now have the sullen look of routine, as though drained from all passion. This may be the future of what is still an affectionate relationship between the two lovers.And all these replicated story-selves are kept in a mineshaft, where the protagonist discovers both him and his girl have been replicated themselves. She tries to kill him. He swaps the 'sci-fi' replicas of fantasy for the real persons, which he leads back into the light of day .This is great work, more erudite than perhaps even Ray Bradbury knew. Forget about any 'red menace' readings, the sci-fi trappings about 'making contact'. You will see here a narrator who succumbs into hallucination as he begins to tell his story about a happy life, and that sci-fi hallucination allows him to fulfill his wish of being both the independent-minded journalist and discoverer of new spaceworlds, but coming to realize this is at the cost of love.The only difference with something like Mulholland Dr. is there we have a filmmaker who is conscious about the fluid walls of reality, deliberate blurs and shifts between layers of dreams. This doesn't, which only adds to the improbable charm; they had the same anxious dreams in those times but couldn't quite put them to words.How smart seems Body Snatchers from '56 now: the shift to inner space happens during sleep.