IMDb user comments for
The Puppet Masters (1994)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Index

48 comments in total

---

16 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Maybe it's NOT for purists, 9 settembre 2001

Author: Steven J. Juon (OHHLA) da Omaha, NE

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.

---

14 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Better Than Expected, 13 maggio 2000
Author: Kirill Galetski (kirill@sptimes.ru) da St. Petersburg, Russia

One science-fiction film that turns out to be less disappointing than expected is this loose adaptation of Robert A. Heinlein's novel.

Donald (give me another part in an alien pod movie) Sutherland interprets the role of Adam "The Old Man" Nivens, head of a secret government protection agency that has its hands full trying to stop an alien invasion by slug-like mental parasites which tap into people's brains, controlling them toward their own ends.

Eric Thal (of A STRANGER AMONG US) draws a blank where a strong character should be in the role of Sam, son of the Old Man, and fellow agent. Julie Warner (from DOC HOLLYWOOD) fares a little better as Mary, a NASA xenobiologist along for the roller coaster ride.

The opening scenes do justice to the setting and atmosphere of the book, and the skeleton of the original plot is unpredictable and thrilling, but eventually, the compromises in adaptation give rise to Hollywood-style sci-fi conventions such as alien hives.

Several realistic, key elements are thrown out, along with almost all of the sharp dialogue which made the book a hit.

However, the special effects are convincing, and the cinematography and editing are streamlined and tight. Far from being definitive, this version of the tale is nonetheless sufficiently satisfying and worth a look.

---

11 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
This just ain't Heinlein..., 22 giugno 2003
Author: EdSi2001 da London

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.

---

9 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Excellent adaptation of a great book!, 3 ottobre 2001

Author: pleides

I strongly disagree with many of the other reviews of this film. It is a very faithful adaptation (given Hollywood's history of adapting for the screen), and one of my favorite movies. It is not entirely faithful, i.e. Operation Bareback (which I would have enjoyed) was forgone, probably due to the mass nudity that it would entail. The love interest, the storyline and the characters were very close to the novel. Some criticize it as a ripoff of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but the novel actually pre-dates that work, so who copied from whom? The scope of the movie was scaled back and little mention was made of landings and conflicts in other countries, but this may be due to editing exigencies. The aliens are suitably creepy as my wife will agree, as she still refuses to watch it again, and it manages without the gore of many similar movies, although it is rather violent.

Compared to another recent Heinlein adaptation, Starship Troopers, this film was much truer to the author's original work and is a thrilling and thoughtful treat. Sadly, it looks like no sequel will be forthcoming to carry the battle to the moons of Saturn.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Poor Directing, Weak Script & Dialogue Spoil Sci-Fi Thriller, 26 agosto 2007

Author: sbrazie da United States

It really makes no sense how this film could not have worked. Working off a script based on a Robert A. Heinlein novel, with the venerable Donald Sutherland in one of the lead roles, and with alien invasion the subject matter, this should have been at least a seven star Science Fiction film. As Sci-Fi goes, the superior ones focus more on futuristic and/or scientific concepts, with action and/or special effects adding to the spectacle. That is why films like the Star Wars saga really aren't Sci-Fi, but action/adventure first (and in the case of Star Wars, fantasy) and science fiction second at best. This film does delve into the biology and culture of the aliens, but just barely. Mostly it focuses on hokey special effects and a few watered-down action scenes to fill up screen time. The aliens themselves are quite realistic and original, a plus for the film. The chemistry between Donald Sutherland as the leader of a secret government agency and his son, played by Eric Thal (an unknown at the time) is actually quite good. In addition, Julie Warner actually does well as the scientist working for Sutherland and of course plays the romantic interest for Sutherland's son. While not a superior actress, she performs adequately, although her talents are more suited to television, as it appears this movie was. While most will think, as I did, while reading the plot synopsis of the film that it is a rip-off of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (Sutherland starred in the remake of this film in 1978), the actual book was published in 1951, prior to the original film as well as the novel written by Jack Finney. Bottom line: not a bad movie to watch when you know you will be distracted as it requires very little of your attention and there are enough action scenes to move the pace along, but science fiction and Heinlein fans will be disappointed.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Disappointing version of a fantastic book, 19 febbraio 1999
Author: Mhac da Castle Hill, Australia

This was a decent film. The book was far better.

If the book had been made into a three-hour film, it would have been excellent. They would have had time to do things right. As it is, they compact a wide-ranging tale set in the future into a dodgy action flick in the present day.

Do yourself a favour - read the book.

Donald Sutherland is too cool, though.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
What a stinker, 12 luglio 2005

Author: Charles Logsdon da Bloomington IN

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Problem #1: The chief problem with this film is its ridiculous screenplay. The film can't decide if it wants to be a mindless action flick or a character-driven sci-fi drama. So what you get is an alien invasion story where all the leads get "infected" by the aliens but are somehow saved by their friends while scores of infected extras get mowed down by machine-gun fire. If a lead character is infected, their buddies come up with all sorts of ways to peel the alien critter off, but if Farmer Joe comes running at them with a lug wrench, no one hesitates to pump him full of holes.

Problem #2: Richard Belzer is in this movie and he is given not a single funny line! SPOILER: When his character ices himself, I felt like it was Richard Belzer's way of saying, "This flick stinks, I'm outta here." Problem #3: The final, cliché helicopter action sequence. It seemed like it they filmed it for another movie or something and just tagged it onto the end of this one.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
'Trust no one' - OK Sci-Fi horror., 16 luglio 2005

Author: Paul Andrews (poolandrews@hotmail.com) da UK

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The Puppet Masters starts in 'Ambrose, Iowa - population 10,079' where three boys playing Frisbee witness some sort of strange electrical disturbance in the sky not too far away, they run to investigate. A special Government agent named Sam Nivens (Eric Thal) meets his Father Andrew (Donald Sutherland), a biologist named Dr. Mary Sefton (Julie Warner) & a bodyguard Jarvis (Richard Belzer) at an airport. Andrew informs Sam that there has been a report of a UFO landing in Iwoa & has satellite photo's to back this claim up, they are all on their way to investigate. Once they reach the landing site they find the three boys have made a UFO of their own out of tin & dustbin lids & are telling everyone it was a publicity stunt. Our four Government agents come to the conclusion that they are lying because some of the ground is burnt which for some reason definitely means a UFO landed there & the boys didn't look at Mary's breasts like every 'normal' male would have. They decide to interview TV station reporter Mr. Barnes (Bruce Charchow) since he was one of the first on the scene. Again he doesn't look at Mary's breast so he must be an alien, Barnes takes a gun out of his desk but is shot by Sam before he can use it, while lying injured on the floor an alien parasite of some sort jumps from his back & attacks our agents but is electrocuted. Back at their labs top scientist Dr. Graves (Will Patton) & Mary examine the alien, they come to the conclusion that it has the ability to control the mind of it's host & that anyone could be a carrier. Soon the aliens make an attempt to take President Douglas (Tom Mason) but fail, it quickly becomes apparent that the aliens are hostile & want to wipe out the entire human race. As they reproduce & take control of us at an astounding rate someone very good at maths calculates that within days there will be as many as 250 billion of them. The time to defeat this enemy is now, but how exactly...?

Directed by Stuart Orme I thought The Puppet Masters was average at best but isn't too bad as far as mindless entertainment goes. The script by Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio & David S. Goyer based on the novel by Robert A. Heinlein is not the best, if these aliens need to be on people's backs why not just have everyone important walk around topless? It sounds silly I know but it would be totally impossible for any alien to go undetected wouldn't it? Problem solved. Anyway, wouldn't anyone with one of these things on their backs have a big bulge in their clothing? Why does Sam conveniently survive an alien being on his back with no ill effects when Jarvis didn't? Why do these aliens need to go to a central hive? How can an alien telepathically transmit a disease which luckily for us will kill them all within about 30 odd minutes but not us, their hosts? Why do the aliens make themselves so visible? Why do they want to take over Earth anyway? The Puppet Masters reminded me of The X Files (1993 - 2002) with it's shadowy mysterious Government agency, it's male & female leads who don't look dissimilar to Mulder (David Duchovny) & Scully (Gillian Anderson). Many of the ideas brought up in The Puppet Masters are not fully explored or developed & as a whole the film feels very small scale & low budget. This is infinitely inferior to Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) in the similar themes, issues & ideas they both set out to explore & achieve. The aliens themselves look like stingrays with a tentacle that impales itself on the back of it's intended victims necks, the special effects are OK if a little rubbery & a scene when one of these aliens is being spun around on a ceiling fan is actually quite funny & stupid looking. There is no gore & very little action as it's mostly dialogue driven, unfortunately the script tends to make who is infected & who isn't painfully obvious which means it loses a lot of the potential paranoia which worked so well in the Body Snatcher films. Technically The Puppet Masters is well made but extremely bland & forgettable, it has the feel of a cheap TV film written all over it. The acting is so-so & no one embarrasses themselves too much. On a positive note it moves along at a nice pace & is never boring, the idea is very good & quite creepy when you think about it & generally speaking it entertains for an hour & a half if you don't have too high an expectation. Worth a watch if you can catch it on TV for free or find a copy going very cheap somewhere, mine cost about 30 pence at which I can't really complain at!

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
OK and something of an overlooked camp classic, 27 agosto 2003
Author: ctomvelu da usa

Donald Sutherland plays his stiff-assed character slightly tongue in cheek. Eric Thal (whatever happened to this guy?) is pretty creepy for a leading man, as befits the character he inhabits. Julie Warner is sexy; too bad we didn't get to see her goodies. The cool-headed thinking of the main characters up against a seemingly invincible enemy is reminsicent of 1951's THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD. Some suspense, even though we know what's going on from scene 1. I have watched this odd little film at least 20 times and enjoyed it everytime. It can be seen as a precursor to THE X-FILES, with Thal and Warner as the prototypes for Mulder and Scully. Some interesting bits, like the newly possessed Warner mock-biting at a red-hot poker in Thal's hand, and Thal crying, nude, in the shower with Warner holding him tightly, as he recalls his recent possession. Only Keith David seems out of place, especially in his big showdown with Thal near the end, when he is literally covered by dozens of the creepy aliens and has been transformed into a M-O-N-S-T-E-R. Definitely worth a look, but do not read the book beforehand. The movie bears scant resemblance to the book.

---

An X-Files Movie in disguise?????, 26 aprile 2008
Author: TahitiLady da United States

I may be the only one, but I just watched this movie again tonight and it is completely like the X-Files! Does anyone else see this?

I had seen it before, but had not seen the connection. But tonight I noticed it.

Even the music is similar...

Is this a set up for X Files, or what????

As I began to watch it tonight, hubby and I were amazed at how many X-Files references there were - there are all the elements of an X-Files story.

We have both read the book - this has little if any resemblance to the book, but if you listen to the characters, and watch the way the story plays out - it is TOTALLY X-Files!

---

---

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Voti	Premi
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Plot keywords
Dettagli principali	Your user comments	Your vote history