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.
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.