Invaders from Mars

Horror genre icon Tobe Hooper takes the directorial reigns and creates this remake of the fine film of the same name from the 50's. This Invaders from Mars is a lot different in many ways. Wheras the original was strictly a science fiction film about the dangers of alien attack and a hidden agenda about who you could trust from a child's point of view, this version goes for laughs as well. Sometimes these "laughs" detract from the thematic structure of the film. Basically the story is the same, but there are ample distinctions as well. A young boy sees a cosmic entity land just beyond his house, discovers changes in his parents, and eventually enlists the aid of a school nurse and later the military to crush the alien threat from Mars. Hooper does some obvious homage type stuff, all of that working very well I thought. The lighted path to the hill had an almost surreal look to it and was reminiscent of the original. Hooper had a school name after Menzies, the director of the original film. The child star falls short in his role exuding limited credibility, but most of the other performers are adequate. Lovely Karen Black plays the nurse, and Timothy Bottoms and Laraine Newman portray the youngster's parents. James Karen camps it up as the general in charge of the military. The performance problem for me was Louise Fletcher. Sure, she makes for a great witchy teacher, but her campy performance was a bit much at times - too incredible. Hooper also over does it with some of the special effects. The Martian creatures really look quite ridiculous with fat bodies and mouths the size of Volkswagens. But some of the effects are pulled off nicely, such as the sand tunnels and the men being devoured in the middle of a sandy pit. This remake, while I firmly believe an unnecessary remake, has some fun aspects to it and is if nothing else an interesting and diverting film. I am not at all sure of what hooper was trying to achieve at the end of the film, but I did feel it was quite contrived and departed from the spirit of the film's unity.

The remake of the memorable 1953 'Invaders from Mars' is also pretty memorable but not in quite the same manner.

Both films have the unusual narrative told from a prepubescent young lad's perspective and both are folded up inside a dream/nighmare plot device.

Both versions have serious incursions into the less satisfying areas of b-movie magic: thin characters and thin storylines but find some redemption from schlock and surprises.

This version has a lot less "surprises", and sadly less of every redeeming and estemable trait.

On the positives the director has a good eye for crane shots with a good roving birds eye view within a few scenes. There's some very peculiar and and distinctively "80's" Martian designs. The idea of copper being some form of fuel and the goofy uses that this gimmick is put to are all kinda OK.

This version of 'Invaders from Mars' definitely makes more of a play on the boys feeling of being a child in an adults world as it builds the dread and tension into his situation. This isn't missing in the interpretation of the original version but here there are a few more domestic touches to set the effect off.

That's it for me though in offering praise, overall I can see why this film has a certain cult following but is otherwise not well remembered by the majority of people.

As a film it is sadly incomplete and unconvincing and as a remake I rate it as inferior to the original. All in all I give a 4/10 rating and that's for the little domestic touches on the earlier stages of the "invasion" plus the 80's practical effects magic which this film does partially posses. I don't really recommend the film but if you can see it for free and you like the kind of films that it us in part a homage to then there is stuff here worth seeing.

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.

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.

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.