The Puppet Masters

How the producers got away with calling this "Robert A. Heinlein's Puppet Masters" amazes me - because the only resemblance to Heinlein's genuinely chilling short story about Titan 'slugs' are the character names. That's it. None of the wonderfully satirical espionage group shenanigans, none of the gripping suspense, none of the character development, and none of the setting. "Puppet Masters" is not supposed to be set in 1994, it's supposed to be set in 1957 - but a different 1957 to the one we know. I mean, this film didn't even attempt the flying cars or the hand-held lasers. Like so many new sci-fi films made from older literature classics, the fiction has been cut out like some sort of hideous tumor and the science has been exaggerated to make sure the audience knows it's SCIENCE fiction. The fact that the science is largely irrelevant is lost on most modern screen writers - and this movie is no exception.

Another example of a perfectly good story that has been shredded to make it 'fit' Hollywood's version of science-fiction, which is largely made up of clanking robots, flashing lights and explosions.

"The Faculty" was a good SF movie. And it was right - Body Snatchers is a rip-off from this story, but it never pretended to be anything but. Faculty had some enjoyable sequences. It wasn't perfect, and elements were laughable, but despite this, it was true to itself..._this_ film was just the massacre of a perfectly good story.

I only hope anyone else who ever tries to make a movie of a Heinlein classic will stick to the book and make a decent movie, not rehash the story until it sounds good - because they sounded good before.

I remember watching this as a kid and thinking it was so scary. Now on rewatch I realize it is a campy sci-fi movie but with some good practical effects and John Carpenter vibes.

However, being that Heinlein was one of the few sci-fi authors I +didn't+ read (I'm more of an Asimov and Bradbury fan myself) as a kid growing up, and I haven't seen the original film, I didn't have any problems with this movie when it came out in theaters. In fact, I found the premise genuinely creepy, the effects highly believable, and the presence of Donald Sutherland to be a masterful touch. It may not go down in the all-time pantheon of "greatest sci-horror films" ever, but if it was playing on HBO I wouldn't change the channel. Sometimes I think people get too caught up in whether a story is true to the original, and forget that it's JUST a movie and they should try to enjoy it on that basis.

This was a decent film. The book was far better.

If the book had been made into a three-hour film, it would have been excellent. They would have had time to do things right. As it is, they compact a wide-ranging tale set in the future into a dodgy action flick in the present day.

Do yourself a favour - read the book.

Donald Sutherland is too cool, though.

This was a decent sci-fi flick. Good performances by Julie Warner and Eric Thal, and of course there's no role that Donald Sutherland can't pull off. Alien effects were revoltingly good. OK, it's not completely true to Heinlein's magnificent novel. Hollywood has a formula, (the happy ending, the obligatory love interest of one or more of the stars, etc.) and any deviation from it is exceedingly rare. That's why foreign films are good, because they are not bound by the formula. I've noticed that great sci-fi movies are almost always originally written for the screen, rather than adapted from books. Books are always better than movies, but science fiction seems to be particularly so.