The Puppet Masters

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.

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.

It looks like a UFO has landed in a small Iowa farm town. A top-secret US government investigative team from the "Office of Scientific Central Intelligence" goes out to investigate. The three stars are: limping leader Donald Sutherland (as Andrew Nivens), his handsome son and partner Eric Thal (as Sam Nivens) and sexy alien biologist Julie Warner (as Mary Sefton). They are about to conclude the whole thing was a teenagers' hoax, but Ms. Warner realizes aliens have landed. The reason, according to Warner, is that no males on the scene have noticed her arousing figure or tried to look down her unbuttoned blouse. You can almost hear her say, "Don't look at that alien spaceship, dammit, look down my shirt!"...

Now, these aliens attach themselves to your back (your spinal column, specifically) and they multiply quickly. The way to see if someone has been "infected" is to order the person to, "Take off your shirt!" Since this trick works, we're left wondering why most people in the cast are allowed to keep their backs covered. Most viewers would not protest Warner and Mr. Thal acting without their shirts (Thal goes without pants, too). If you don't mind wondering about plot confusions and contrivances like that, you could do worse than Stuart Orme's vision of Robert A. Heinlein's science-fiction novel. Thal and Warner are an attractive couple and Mr. Sutherland is a classic performer who can improve movies by simply being there.

****** The Puppet Masters (10/21/94) Stuart Orme ~ Eric Thal, Julie Warner, Donald Sutherland, Keith David

Not having read any of the highly acclaimed writer Robert A. Heinlein's work, including the original novel "Puppet Masters", I can't really comment on whether or not this piece does him or his work any justice, but from a point of view that hasn't in any way been influenced by his work or others' opinions(...maybe scratch that last one), I must admit that it's not half bad. The plot is pretty good, and it keeps developing at an adequate rate, while keeping a fair pace, but it seems to drop a tad once this entered its last half or so. The acting is decent enough, with Donald Sutherland being the one to stand out and deliver a marvelous performance. The characters are well-written, well-casted, credible and believable. This is strangely similar to TV features, in the way it's shot and edited. The special effects are great, but short of spectacular. The creature design was reasonably interesting, and well thought out, and the related effects are actually relatively nicely done. The science fiction aspects of this, with the aliens and their actions are well-done. I liked the way the film utilizes mood and atmosphere rather than excessive gore to scare and thrill the audience. The atmosphere and mood are decent enough, just not as well-done as they could have been. The movie also fails to inspire the same paranoia and fear that, for example, John Carpenter's The Thing does. Finally, the climax was a bit overly Hollywood-like, but hey, this does provide about 110 minutes worth of sufficiently entertaining science fiction-horror about the always dreaded extra-terrestrial invasion. I recommend it to fans of the genre and/or Donald Sutherland(it should also be noted that Keith David rocks, as he has something of a tendency to do). 6/10

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.