Rating: 
Summary: Don't Overlook This "Recent Classic" Sci-Fi
Review:
Do NOT confuse this movie with the similarly titled, low-budget series of "Puppet Master" films about demonic marionettes!"The Puppet Masters" (1994) DVD is definitely worth a viewing or two, and...you shouldn't pass up the opportunity to buy this DVD for your collection. If some of the material seems trite, keep in mind that this is a near-faithful adaptation of Robert Heinlein's book of the same title, as originally published in 1951. Many elements that are overly familiar to today's sci-fi fans originated here. This film boasts good performances (Donald Sutherland, Eric Thal) and some creepy special effects. The first 30 minutes or so are especially well crafted. There are lulls but also surprises, including a convention center scene that is highly exciting, and some suspenseful military scenes, too. The last half-hour degenerates somewhat (in my opinion) with a fight that goes on for too long and the by now standard "It's over"/"Oh, it's not over" stuff, but all in all I have few reservations about recommending this underrated movie.
Rating:
Summary: Crappy but somehow still entertaining
Review: Based on the first, absolute classic, original "Aliens take over humans" story by Heinlein, how could it not be full of cliche moments. However even though "The Puppet Masters" is arguably one of the best sci-fi *stories* ever written, the movie (as usual), does it no justice at all. All the essential social elements have been removed and as is so often the case in science fiction movies the scene has been moved to the present day presumeably to make the audience identify with the characters more and also to save money on special effects. All the nudity and sex of the original novel has been removed in favour of a new (token) black character, a large rubber "nest creature" and a *lot* of shooting and marine-type lingo like "lock and load" etc... I guess this makes it more of an "action" movie? Despite what the other reviewer says, Sutherland does not overact and is his usual great self, the big flaw in terms of casting is the CREEPY Eric Thal as the lead guy (how can you identify with that?), and the repulsive Julie Warner doing a bad Barbara Streisand impersonation as his sexy??? girlfriend. (I mean when the damsel is in distress you should want the guy to save her whereas I found myself cheering for her execution.) The fact that this movie is eight years old now and neither of these two actors have done anything of note since, says it all. All that being said, for some reason I find myself pulling this movie off the shelf much more often that it deserves. It's a stinker, but somehow comforting to watch over and over again. Sort of like Christopher Reeve in "Village of the Damned." Someday, someone will make one of Heinleins many many excellent original stories into a GOOD movie. (hint: try not changing the story)
Rating: 
Summary: Um, Hmm . . .
Review: Eric Thal is truly the greatest American thespian ever to grace the silver screen. Did anybody else notice that he mostly acts with his mouth? Like, when he was taken over by the alien, he opened his mouth real wide cause now he's EVIL Eric Thal. And then when Julie Warner has that happen to her, and at the end (which I won't give away, even though it's like a Mack Truck rumbling down a residential street, pretty hard not to see it coming), Thal's got his mouth open real wide again. That's the DISTRESSED Eric Thal, I suppose. Rest of the cast is a B-movie lovers gallery. Marshall Bell, Yaphet Kotto, the guy who played the President, and the guy who played the President's head of security (I've seen both of them elsewhere), oh, and who could forget the guy who plays Thal's partner whose name I just can't place right now. He's awesome, too. The movie itself? Well, aside from Eric Thal's BIG FAT MOUTH OF EVIL DISTRESS, it's a guilty pleasure movie at best, laughable joke at worst. Worth renting so you too can feel the power of THE MOUTH OF THAL.
Rating:
Summary: Sci-fi lovers: enjoy
Review: I'm impressed. There was a lot of substance in this movie for what it was. A bit of cheese of course (it is almost a decade old) and the occasional flaw, but nothing to really turn you off. A bunch of familiar and talented actors play peripheral roles which helps, and the budget was bigger than I had expected for a movie like this. Anyone who loves sci-fi would probably enjoy it (that goes for X-file fans especially). I never noticed the mouth thing on Thal (that the other reviewer mentioned) so I wouldn't worry about it ruining the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Starts well, falls flat
Review: I'm not sure what happened here. The cast is great (especially the always dependable Donald Sutherland as the Old Man) and the script starts out well. But somewhere in the middle it falls flat and stays that way until the end. The movie is based on Robert A. Heinlein's SF classic of the same name, which was written at around the same time as Jack Finney's similarly-themed _The Body Snatchers_ (one film adaptation of which, incidentally, also featured Sutherland). The book isn't Heinlein's best work but his worst is at least readable. Likewise, the movie is mostly watchable. It just doesn't maintain its crackle all the way through. And at this late date, we really need something more impressive than the usual run of 'pod people' to justify making this movie, since Finney's book has already been done _three times_. (And yes, I _do_ want a movie -- and a book -- where somebody asks why the aliens 'hate' us. Was _The Day the Earth Stood Still_ filmed in vain?) I really wanted to like it, and to some extent I do. I'm just disappointed that even an underwhelming Heinlein work got such a tame screen adaptation.
Rating:
Summary: Good Adaptation of the 1951 Book
Review: I've been apprehensive about watching this movie because of the generally poor reviews. Thus, it has taken me nine years to get around to watching it. I'm glad I did. The book is reasonably faithful to the well-written book by Robert A. Heinlein. There are departures from the book to keep the movie moving along, but the essence of the movie remains faithful to the story. One of the interesting things about the book and the movie, which some reviewers have pointed to as poor acting, is that Donald Sutherland (as Andrew Nivens) and Eric Thal (as Sam Nivens, Andrew's son) seem to be relatively expressionless. Both characters were described as being rather stoic, nearly emotionless people in Heinlein's book. It's difficult to portray that type of character on the screen because the acting can come across as wooden or emotionless. Eric Thal acted as Sam Nivens was written by Heinlein. I am not sufficiently familiar with Eric Thal to comment on his acting abilities in general, but I reasonably satisfied by his portrayal of Sam. His acting could have been better, but it was acceptable. One point that I found rather distressing is that in Heinlein's original story, everyone was pretty much running around with minimal clothing by the end of the story to prevent the slugs from hiding in pants or loose underwear, as the slugs were fairly small. The movie minimized this exposure, likely because it might have distracted further from the movie. However, one of society's first reactions in this situation would be to have everyone be nearly nude to prevent slug-ridden people from infiltrating those that were not. Unfortunately for this movie it came much later than many other movies that may share similar concepts. However, consider that the original novel was published in 1951, and pre-dates the vast majority of movies such as "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", "Alien" and the great host of other alien possession movies. Thus, all these other movies may be derivative from the book "The Puppet Masters", but not the other way around, particularly considering how faithful the movie was to the book. There have been few movie-makers brave enough to attempt filming a Heinlein book; unfortunate, because Heinlein is one of the most influential science fiction writers of all time. The two recent movies based on Heinlein's books are B-movies (this movie and "Starship Troopers"), but for all their flaws they are a very rare treat for hard-core science fiction fans and for Heinlein fans. I admit I stretched a little to rate this movie four stars, but I own the DVD and I will watch this movie again.
Rating:
Summary: Good Adaptation of the 1951 Book
Review: I've been apprehensive about watching this movie because of the generally poor reviews. Thus, it has taken me nine years to get around to watching it. I'm glad I did. The book is reasonably faithful to the well-written book by Robert A. Heinlein. There are departures from the book to keep the movie moving along, but the essence of the movie remains faithful to the story. One of the interesting things about the book and the movie, which some reviewers have pointed to as poor acting, is that Donald Sutherland (as Andrew Nivens) and Eric Thal (as Sam Nivens, Andrew's son) seem to be relatively expressionless. Both characters were described as being rather stoic, nearly emotionless people in Heinlein's book. It's difficult to portray that type of character on the screen because the acting can come across as wooden or emotionless. Eric Thal acted as Sam Nivens was written by Heinlein. I am not sufficiently familiar with Eric Thal to comment on his acting abilities in general, but I reasonably satisfied by his portrayal of Sam. His acting could have been better, but it was acceptable. One point that I found rather distressing is that in Heinlein's original story, everyone was pretty much running around with minimal clothing by the end of the story to prevent the slugs from hiding in pants or loose underwear, as the slugs were fairly small. The movie minimized this exposure, likely because it might have distracted further from the movie. However, one of society's first reactions in this situation would be to have everyone be nearly nude to prevent slug-ridden people from infiltrating those that were not. Unfortunately for this movie it came much later than many other movies that may share similar concepts. However, consider that the original novel was published in 1951, and pre-dates the vast majority of movies such as "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", "Alien" and the great host of other alien possession movies. Thus, all these other movies may be derivative from the book "The Puppet Masters", but not the other way around, particularly considering how faithful the movie was to the book. There have been few movie-makers brave enough to attempt filming a Heinlein book; unfortunate, because Heinlein is one of the most influential science fiction writers of all time. The two recent movies based on Heinlein's books are B-movies (this movie and "Starship Troopers"), but for all their flaws they are a very rare treat for hard-core science fiction fans and for Heinlein fans. I admit I stretched a little to rate this movie four stars, but I own the DVD and I will watch this movie again.
Rating:
Summary: Better than expected
Review: If your only cinematic experience with Heinlein stories is starship troopers then you are in for a treat. Where starship troopers was possibly the worst movie ever made (not excluding plan 9 from outer space), this film is actually quite good.
The cast is good, if not extraordinary. The big name talent of the film was Donald Sutherland, who did an excellent job of capturing the character found in the book. I was pleased with Julie Warner's perfomance as Mary, and both pleased and surprised by Eric Thal's perfomance as Sam. Granted he did have a disturbing habit of exhibiting emotion with his mouth, but he was a pleasant character.
If you haven't read the book, I highly suggest that you do, it is better. At the same time, I felt that the changes that were made were good ones. It modernized the concept to fit with our current culture and technological level, as opposed to Heinlein's hypothetical, and unrealistic future depiction. The movie flowed fairly well with the exception of the end.
The problem with the end was primarily during the whole encephalitis/cure thread. There was a somewhat abrupt and unpolished feel to this. Perhaps a slight rewrite could have helped.
Whatever its problems, it is an enjoyable piece of science fiction cinema, that I highly recommend to you. Watch and enjoy
Rating:
Summary: Better than expected
Review: If your only cinematic experience with Heinlein stories is starship troopers then you are in for a treat. Where starship troopers was possibly the worst movie ever made (not excluding plan 9 from outer space), this film is actually quite good.
The cast is good, if not extraordinary. The big name talent of the film was Donald Sutherland, who did an excellent job of capturing the character found in the book. I was pleased with Julie Warner's perfomance as Mary, and both pleased and surprised by Eric Thal's perfomance as Sam. Granted he did have a disturbing habit of exhibiting emotion with his mouth, but he was a pleasant character.
If you haven't read the book, I highly suggest that you do, it is better. At the same time, I felt that the changes that were made were good ones. It modernized the concept to fit with our current culture and technological level, as opposed to Heinlein's hypothetical, and unrealistic future depiction. The movie flowed fairly well with the exception of the end.
The problem with the end was primarily during the whole encephalitis/cure thread. There was a somewhat abrupt and unpolished feel to this. Perhaps a slight rewrite could have helped.
Whatever its problems, it is an enjoyable piece of science fiction cinema, that I highly recommend to you. Watch and enjoy
Rating:
Summary: Pass the cheese, please.
Review: It would be easy to call this movie a complete bust and give it 1 star. On the other hand it would be easy to be fascinated by it and give it 5 stars. Objectively, however, I think 3 stars is fair. On the one hand, it tells a moderately interesting story on a shoestring budget and pulls it off, on the other, it shamelessly exploits every cliche of the alien invasion genre. Aliens that cling to your spine and make you a puppet. Unresolved father/son angst. Gratuitous display of a woman in her bra. Last-minute eureka to save civilization. Hurrah! No one has seen a case of overacting more blatant than Donald Sutherland's since Gene Wilder did Young Frankenstein, and Gene was going for the laughs. If I sound harsh about this, I don't mean to. Here is a movie that is at least entertaining, if not a strain to the mind, that you can watch with the kids. Heat up a Kraft Cheese Dinner and have this movie for dessert. I won't tell a soul you did.
| 
