Horrible, horrible remake!
-
escalera-2 — 17 years ago(March 23, 2009 01:20 PM)
Even here your harsh feelings are justified. I think it could have been a very good movie but it was a bit over-ambitious. I liked Mr. Hooper's
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
and even
Lifeforce
(
Poltergiest
had its moments), but his other stuff has been a disappointment for me. Perhaps because I had high expectations this title has been my greatest disappointment.
Back in 1986, on his birthday, I had taken my son, his siblings and his friend to see it. I'll have to ask them what they thought of it. Maybe through the eyes of children. -
escalera-2 — 16 years ago(June 02, 2009 11:35 AM)
I know it will sound like a contradiction but if it turned up on TV today, I would tune in to watch it. Somewhere along the way I really wanted to like this version.
If I watched it now, maybe I'd check out the set designs or the wardrobe or the sound. Or look for something in the background that I might have missed. -
iheartjacksparrow — 15 years ago(July 24, 2010 03:26 PM)
Got to agree with the OP, this is a terrible movie. It seems like they dumbed down the original film for children. The original is truly scary, with creepy music, and the mom's voice after she's been taken over.[shivers]. In this version, everyone says their lines like they are trying to stifle a laugh. The creatures in this one aren't the least bit frightening; they look they belong in a Sid and Marty Krofft show. Another bad remake that should never have gotten a greenlight.
-
escalera-2 — 15 years ago(July 24, 2010 03:55 PM)
H.R. Pufnstuf!
That's great!
While this re-make did have some nice touches, I think I had lost confidence in
Tobe Hooper
with
Poltergeist
(1982) even though it had some good moments here and there. But when I heard he was tackling this one, I was willing let him rip.
Alas!
little good came from the effort.
Time to dust off the old VCR and dig up the VHS tape of the 1953
"nightmarish answer to The Wizard of OZ!" -
Koosh_King01 — 13 years ago(October 20, 2012 07:16 AM)
'The creatures in this one aren't the least bit frightening; they look they belong in a Sid and Marty Krofft show.'
And the guys in velour suits and fluffy mittens and goggles in the original did, too. Seriously. They looked silly. If anything, the goofy appearance of the Martians in this one was likely an intentional homage to how utterly ridiculous the aliens in the original looked.
And in both versions, since it's all just a kid's nightmare, one can argue the doofy appearance of the aliens is because that's what a child would imagine aliens to look like. Both reflect the popular conceptions of aliens of the time(s) as seen through the eyes of a child. In the 50's, it made sense for a child to imagine intelligent aliens as looking more or less human, as more fantastic depictions of aliens weren't terribly commonplace in the very early 50's. Flash-forward to the 80's, where several years' worth of more fanciful interpretations of aliens in films and comic books would lead a child to dream up something that looks like the creatures we get here; definitely not human, with huge mouths and big sharp teeth.
"I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?" -
TheSolarSailor — 13 years ago(October 26, 2012 08:38 AM)
I'm sorry, but I don't buy that jazz about the bad creature effects being intentional. No one is going to sabotage their own film like that. The creature effects were simply the typical use of puppetry in the 1980s, and it wasn't even at the higher end of the spectrum. Yes, the creatures looked awful in the original, but the goal of a remake is to try and do better, not purposely make it bad. No one wants to see that, and no studio is going to pour a lot into something that has such an intention.
I don't dislike the film because of the creature effects, though. It still manages to be fun. But let us not pretend that the effects are anything other than what they aresub par work.
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
-
shtickcoma — 13 years ago(April 19, 2012 12:26 PM)
I am half way through watching this and am waiting for something good to happen. This film is very boring thus far. There is absolutely zero feel.
"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies."
-Andy Dufresne -
criddic2 — 13 years ago(June 08, 2012 01:47 AM)
I think the setup worked fairly well, but did get sillier as it went along, culminating in a strange ending. I suspect Hooper wanted to make this into an homage to the original, which is why the creatures look like they could have come from an old B-movie. I also think they made the ending the way they did because they thought they needed a twist. Unfortunately, it doesn't all work in the end in spite of the talent involved. Oscar-winners John Dykstra and Stan Winston saw better days. However, I don't think it is the worst movie ever made or anything. A serious mis-fire, but not without interest. The boy who starred in it, Hunter Carson, is still making movies but mainly behind the scenes.
-
superman1 — 13 years ago(June 23, 2012 01:04 AM)
Stuff
Pufnstuf
LOL.
4 years later I'm continuing this conversation. Excuse me for being a lot slow.
I have read every entry.
I am the only one on the blue planet who loves this film from the red planet.
It's just so linear and simple, like
A
..
L
..
I
..
E
..
N
is and really as rare in being the first and only realisticcy alien invasion movie with UFO and aliens up to that time.
Though it loses coherance in the parts it doesn't know if it wants to be a comedy/send up or serious, and from some flat dialogue and acting.
The drones may be the most ingenious creatively of any creature, removing it from a man in a suit more than even
Alien
, for using arms as back legs (I think), and being the most alien or non-humanoid, for which Stan should have won the Oscar if not for
A
.
L
.
|
.
E
.
N
.
S
. Mr Pufnstuf indeed. They're giant Mr. PotatoHeads.
To this day
IfM
remains about the only classic alien invasion movie, apart from
ID
(we'll leave out the
4
here - as it shoulda been - which was put in to copy T2 and never fit)
I also love the music, especially the building title score, accompanying the exciting title sequence.
Must be the most under-rated over-hated movie made. It sits somewhere between a high-class B-movie and low-class A.
'Poor little movie.' -
TheSolarSailor — 13 years ago(October 26, 2012 08:43 AM)
George Lucas used puppets in Return of the Jedi as well to get away from the human in costume lookand it still didn't work well and looked every bit like the puppet that it was. I can live with it, but the potato head martians wouldn't be able to function at all. They weren't cleverly designed at all, but rather were clumsy and unable to do anything other than hope something like Louise Fletcher trips into their mouth. There is making something look alien yet functional, and there there is thisa miscalculation.
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?