Skip to main content

Why don't we go on a picnic, up the hill?

Invaders from Mars
(1986)

(SPOILERS) One can wax thematical over the number of remakes of ’50s movies in the ’80s – and ’50s SF movies in particular – and of how they represent ever-present Cold War and nuclear threats, and steadily increasing social and familial paranoias and disintegrating values. Really, though, it’s mostly down to the nostalgia of filmmakers for whom such pictures were formative influences (and studios hoping to make an easy buck on a library property). Tobe Hooper’s version of nostalgia, however, is not so readily discernible as a John Carpenter or a David Cronenberg (not that Cronenberg could foment such vibes, any more than a trip to the dental hygienist). Because his directorial qualities are not so readily discernible. Tobe Hooper movies tend to be a bit shit. Which makes it unsurprising that Invaders from Mars is a bit shit.

So pairing Hooper with Cannon was asking for trouble. A movie company whose presiding criterion was that everything they churned out should be at very least a bit shit, but preferably really shit. Cannon fare was generally cheap and cheesy, and even when it wasn’t cheap, it managed to feel like it was. For a couple of years during the mid-’80s, if you don’t count Michael Winner, Hooper managed to be their in-house “auteur”, delivering first expensive bomb Lifeforce, then this, and finally The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. Menahem and Yoram Globus were none too happy with any of them, particularly the tendencies towards goofy humour in the latter two. And while one might argue Hooper was simply reflecting the house style, the only really polished movie in his catalogue is the one commonly cited as having been ghost-directed by Spielberg, spookfest blockbuster Poltergeist (and what a lot of grim stories there are relating to the sphere of and beyond that picture, should you wish to steel yourself to investigate further).

Invaders from Mars is no exception to the kind of slipshod approach you can find in the Hooper oeuvre, from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre down (complete with queasy goofball humour). It’s also a reasonably good-looking movie in terms of production values, even as Hooper intermittently does his best to undercut such leanings. Dan O’Bannon adapted Richard Blake and John Tucker Battle’s 1953 screenplay (with Don Jakoby of, er, Death Wish III fame), while John Dykstra handled visual effects and Stan Winston (pulling double duties on Aliens) provided the creature effects. Production designer Leslie Dilley had previously worked as art director on the first two Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Eureka, Alien, Legend and Superman. The picture, most particularly during the opening stages, has an off-kilter, warped fairy-tale quality, aided by Hooper using distorting lens and low angles (the child protagonist’s view and paranoia).

Indeed, Invaders from Mars is pretty decent for the first thirty or forty minutes. It’s easy to forget, since Invasion of the Body Snatchers gets all the notices, that the original Invaders from Mars had the drop on it by three years. Perhaps because we follow a child’s POV in both original and remake, and because the plot runs out of gas, it’s easy to diminish its effectiveness, but the early scenes as David Gardner (Hunter Carson) discovers something is very wrong with formerly adoring dad George (Timothy Bottoms, really very good) and subsequently his mum too are potent stuff. Hooper’s enjoying himself here as dad knocks back coffee brimming with artificial sweeteners (the sure sign of an evil force possessing one) and then has David picked on at school by Louise Fletcher – no typecasting there – as strict teacher and clone Mrs McKeltch (Fletcher delivers the picture’s prize moment, swallowing a whole frog used for dissection purposes).

But the problems here are manifold. One is that, while there were numerous child protagonist movies in the 1980s, and a good number were quite popular and well performed, paging Elliott, Carson is lacking in anything but all-American blondeness. He has no character to speak of (now, cast The Goonies’ Chunk in the lead and you have a monster hit on your hands). He’s mostly paired with his actual mum Karen Black (playing the school nurse). Black manages to be quite forgettable, not really like her, required as she is to adopt the screamer role and be consoled by her wiser child.

Another issue is that O’Bannon fails to alter the plot sufficiently. So as per the original, the military are called in and from there, the proceedings head underground to confront the creatures. With lots of zapping. James Karen is fine as General Wilson, going against the grain in such matters by accepting David’s story, while Bud Cort shows up as a foolishly alien-friendly scientist (NASA are infiltrated, not that they aren’t anyway). Hooper retains the shock ending – it was all a dream, The Wizard of Oz style, but then David sees the same spaceship that arrived at the outset, runs to tell his parents and screams at the sight of…

One of the remake’s highlights is Winston’s work. One thing ’80s cinema had in abundance was great creature prosthetics – you know, back before CGI was the be all and end all of genre movies – and Invaders from Mars very much takes its place within a cinematic tapestry interweaving the likes of Explorers and Big Trouble in Little China. There are drone aliens – giant mouths on legs (one of which eventually swallows Fletcher) – and the diminutive Martian leader (an inspiration for O’Bannon’s Kato in Total Recall?) The biggest takeaway is pondering what someone less hit-and-miss than Hooper might have done with all this talent and visual potential.

The we-not-we element works effectively during the first half; I think, because of the movie’s child’s perspective, it doesn’t need to boost the societal-mores reading of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers iterations. This is, rather, something more endemic and generational. When Mrs McKeltch ranges at David, snarling “And I hope you need a tetanus shot!” the implication is that he won’t like receiving one (no one should like receiving their shots, particularly when they’re ultimately fatal). Because adults are in the habit of inflicting pain on children. Of course, Fletcher has received her shot, as have David’s parents: in the back of the neck. They are detached, remote, unfeeling, no longer connected with their core being; they’re now soulless, bereft of humanity. Just the standard side effect of getting your shots. In David’s dream version, his parents are restored at the end, but who knows if the real movie, beginning in the last scene, will pay off the same way…

Cannon made some considerably more expensive pictures during its prolific ’80s run – this wasn’t much bigger a flop than the similarly budgeted Indy rip off King Solomon’s Mines or the actually very good Runaway Train – the aforementioned Lifeforce, Over the Top and Masters of the Universe among them. Hooper delivered the studio the equivalent (not in quality, but you get the idea) of a Joe Dante movie when they expected a Steven Spielberg one. Which would have been fine if Invaders from Mars was also really good. I don’t think it would have taken much. A different director, a stronger third act and more sensitive casting. And not being made by Cannon.


Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.