Invaders from Mars

The movie itself is pretty campy and you can't expect a whole heck of a lot out of it, just some cheesy 80's sci-fi fun, but what stands out for me was that I was an extra in this movie and got to experience the making of the movie first hand! I remember, I was in elementary school and got the opportunity to be in this movie. The first day that I participated was at the school scenes. At first I was one of the kids that was playing outside in the yard and then I was one of the kids walking in the hallway of the school. I can't recall if I was in the classroom, I haven't seen the movie since right after it came out and I just ordered the DVD so I'll have to check it out.

The other day that I was on set in a state park that was in Malibu, CA where they filmed several different scenes. One of which was a yellow school bus with kids/drones on it. I was in that bus, just staring forward with no expression, as per the direction from Tobe Hooper.

It was a fun experience and my first time ever in the movie biz so I'll always have a special little place in my heart for this movie. Good times!

Director Tobe Hooper (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre), visual effects wizard John Dykstra (Star Wars), make-up FX genius Stan Winston (Aliens), screenwriter Dan O'Bannon (Alien), cinematographer Daniel Pearl (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre): there's a wealth of experience and talent behind this lavish '80s remake of '50s cold-war sci-fi classic Invaders From Mars, but it amounts to little more than a thoroughly cheesy and rather camp piece of trashy escapism. For some, that might be enough, but given its pedigree, I expected, nay, DEMANDED much more.

The film's weakest point is undoubtedly its young lead Hunter Carson, who appears in almost every scene, but is unable to even run convincingly, let alone persuade the viewer that the planet is under threat from Martians (what's with the flappy arms, Hunter?). A better actor in the central role would have helped immensely, although Hooper's direction also proves lacklustre, his film lacking in suspense but loaded with schmaltz (the overly saccharine opening family scenes suggest that the director spent far too long in the presence of Spielberg during the filming of Poltergeist). Serving to undermine the film's effectiveness further are the somewhat clunky aliens—far from Winston's best work.

Mindlessly entertaining in the way that only an '80s Cannon movie could be, the film is admittedly never boring, and benefits from some interesting set design and impressive lighting, but as a big-budget sci-fi (by Cannon Pictures' standards, at least) from the man who gave us Leatherface, this can only be deemed a disappointment. Oh, well, at least this film's failure (along with his previous sci-fi/horror flop Lifeforce) resulted in Hooper returning to familiar territory for the long-awaited Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

5.5 out of 10, rounded up to 6 for IMDb.

This is not a movie to be viewed from a serious perspective. But even sci-fi aficionados seem to have been losing their sense of fun over the years, which may be why this remake has been panned so badly. The whole movie is viewed from a young boy's dark imagination, right down to the ridiculous Mr. Potato head aliens. Even the camera angles are taken from child's height. And within the bizarre dream world of adolescent fears and disempowerment springs forth a really fun movie. Within this context, the remake of Invaders from mars remains true to the 1950's genre with some tongue in cheek. Relax, grab some popcorn, and warp back to the 50's, when your imagination didn't have to be fed with a spoon.

Hooper and his writers seem to want to both parody the 1950s classic and, at the same time, to be a straight remake of it. Trouble is that this simply isn't possible. It looks great throughout, with superb, shadowy photography and generally good production design (though the Martian drones look more silly than anything else). Some of the actors, particularly Karen Black and Louise Fletcher, are very good; some, unfortunately including lead Hunter Carson, are not very good.

But the main failing is that the tone is so inconsistent. Some scenes are played for horror, and work; some are played as if the intent was comic, and they don't work. If the intent was to actually scare us, after being taken over by the Martians, the parents should have acted creepy -- but instead, they act silly, which is hardly the same thing. It's not the fault of Bottoms and Newman -- they could have played the roles however the director and script suggested -- but rather a failure to go for broke. In the original film, after returning from the sand pit, the father brutally slaps his son. Here, the big weird touch is that he fills his coffee cup with sweetener. Doesn't quite have the same impact.

And what's with the frogs? Kids LIKE frogs; they don't regard them as creepy. There should never have been a scene without the boy in it, but there are several. There should have been some touches of surrealism to fit the all-a-dream scenario. Dream logic isn't like waking logic, but it's stringent nonetheless; this film ignores logic. In the original, the Martians take over the parents, the neighbor kid, the cops and the military -- exactly the targets a boy would expect. Adding a teacher wasn't a bad idea, but the other targets here, including a busload of kids, don't make any sense. Why would the Martians want to control a bunch of children?

The effects are good but not as well-conceived as they might have been. The sand funnel that captures people is fancier in this remake, but much eerier in the original. And Christopher Young's score is a disaster.

The opportunity was here to make a technologically-improved version of a much-loved classic original, but for the most part, the film doesn't live up to its potential.

I'm not sure what to make of Tobe Hooper. He can direct all time classics like Poltergeist and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but he also creates odd misfires like this movie.

Invaders From Mars is almost totally ruined by hammy, awkward acting. This is partially due to incompetence, especially on the part of the young lead actor, but it feels likely that the actors were actually directed to perform this way, in order to emulate the corny, over the top acting style of 1950's horror and sci fi films. Indeed the entire movie is an homage to this era of filmmaking. Instead of taking the premise of a 50's monster movie and updating it with modern special effects and filmmaking methods, it feels like Tobe was trying to make the exact kind of film that would have been made in that period, including corny dialogue and rubbery monsters.

On one hand this movie is trying to be straight up horror, and on the other it's trying to be a 1950's pastiche, and those two tones clash. The young lead seems plucked from one of those old boys adventure stories. The movie needs him to have genuine emotional reactions in order for the horror to be fully effective. We need to see him be afraid and shocked and sad as any boy would be in this situation, but instead he is always plucky and courageous and never seems to be too fazed by the surreal and terrible things happening around him. The lead actress is there only to scream and look scared and to move the plot forward.

The Martian monsters created by John Dykstra and Stan Winston are generally great, especially in their first on screen appearance, but they seem more and more creaky and rubbery as the film progresses, which might have been intentional in order to maintain the 50's homage style. The flying spaceship shots are excellent.

I think this could have been an 80's horror cult classic if it had dropped the hammy acting and committed fully to its horror premise. Because the performances are wooden and cliched, nothing in the movie feels consequential. The movie is fun for the special effects alone, but it mostly feels like an awkward missed opportunity.