Own the rights?
16 out of 18 people found the following comment useful :- Better Than Expected, 13 May 2000 Author: Kirill Galetski (kirill@sptimes.ru) from 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.
17 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :- Maybe it's NOT for purists, 9 September 2001 Author: Steven J. Juon (OHHLA) from 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.
15 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :- This just ain't Heinlein..., 22 June 2003 Author: EdSi2001 from 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.
8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :- Poor Directing, Weak Script & Dialogue Spoil Sci-Fi Thriller, 26 August 2007 Author: sbrazie from 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.
13 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :- Excellent adaptation of a great book!, 3 October 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.
4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :- Better than i thought it would be, 2 October 2007 Author: Dr_Deadhorse from Happy, Happy Movieland
I don't understand, though, why so much deviation from the book. Heinlein already had everything set up. All it needed was to be turned into a screenplay. With only a minimal amount of CGI needed as the story takes place in the very-near-future.In the book, Venus was a crucial part of the story and when Heinlein wrote the book, next to nothing was known about the planet and it might have been a habitable place. We know better now, but still, a preface at the beginning of the movie stating that these events were occurring in an alternate universe where Venus was habitable would have worked better as Heinlein's version was much more interesting and gritty. I could have accepted that.Thal was pretty much the mental image i had of Sam from the book. Sutherland wasn't at all my mental image of Sam's pop, but still, Sutherland played the role spot on. In fact, excellently.The aliens weren't quite my mental image from the book, but still a pretty good depiction. Definitely naughty aliens being naughty aliens.Worth watching? Sure, why not. If you're at the video rental store in the scifi section debating to rent Supernova starring Luke Perry or this movie, rent this one. You'll be cursing and swearing if you rent Supernova and the complete waste of your hard-earned money, whereas you will get at least some entertainment out of this one.One dead hoof up from me for showing at least some depictions from Heinlein's book and making my mental images come alive. One dead hoof down for unnecessarily deviating so much from Heinlein's book.
7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :- Disappointing version of a fantastic book, 19 February 1999 Author: Mhac from 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.
4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :- Disappointing..., 3 July 2004 Author: mentalcritic from Southern Hemisphere
Like Stephen King, Robert Heinlein is an author whose work is frequently adapted into Hollywood screenplays. Also like Stpehen King, the results of adapting Heinlein's work into the format of film rarely live up to the potential set by the material. The major difference between the two authors is that an adaptation of Heinlein usually gets better the further it strays from the source, so long as it sticks to the spirit. Ironically, the Verhoeven/Neumeier adaptation of StarShip Troopers remains the best that Hollywood has come up with so far.The problem with The Puppet Masters as a film is that after a well-constructed setup in which the aliens are made entirely plausible, even somehow real, it descends rapidly into yet another action/sci-fi hybrid in the vein of Predator or Aliens. This in itself wouldn't be so bad, except for two things. One, Heinlein's stories were always intended as the exact opposite kind of science-fiction. Two, the mixture of the two elements leaves the film unbalanced. The second half feels very disjoined from the first.The scientific concepts shown in the film are not perfect, but they give it an atmosphere that many horror films of the era lack. However, the science of the film is not the only key to making a great story. Where it falls down is in the Transition. The Transition from one moment to the next leaves gaps of logic that disconnects the audience from the story. The questions of how on Earth one thing got here or there are never adequately answered. Telling us that something escaped never works as well as showing us, and unfortunately, this production of The Puppet Masters never does enough of the latter.The acting doesn't help matters a lot. Donald Sutherland is very competent as usual, but the script gives him little to distinguish his character from the other several dozen that he's played in an almost identical manner. Julie Warner stands out as the character who grabs the viewer's attention, by fair means and foul. Eric Thal, on the other hand, is like Keanu Reeves. You could replace him with a wooden plank that has a mean face painted on it, and nobody would know the difference. Richard Belzer stands out in an almost-wordless cameo. Anyone else in the film never gets the chance to distinguish themselves.The second half and inadequate characterisation of the film would have been easy to overcome if only one of them were present. The only problem is that third, fourth, even fifth problems are added. One major problem is the sheer volume of exposition that is delivered through dialogue. It is one thing to tell us how character X felt sensation Y at moment Z. To do this without flashbacks or recapping footage from new angles is a difficult ask at best, and with a cast of this calibre, it simply shouldn't be done.Ironically, the concept of The Puppet Masters was done slightly better in a direct-to-video sequel to StarShip Troopers. The concept of an alien parasite using a host for a sinister purpose was also done better in The Thing. If you've already seen those films, then The Puppet Masters is worth checking out. If not, I'd recommend checking them out first. A 5 out of 10 from me.
3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :- What a stinker, 12 July 2005 Author: Charles Logsdon from 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 :- Great movie and another good heinlein movie, 15 August 1999 Author: Krager from Washington, United states
To those other people that think this is a butchering of his work... learn to have fun.. sheesh, it is a great movie, it doesnt go far from the book, and it still gets his point... if you hated it... don't ruin it for those of us that like it... and don't poison the rest of those people that havent seen it for those of you out there that like sci fi, it is great, for those of you that like heinlien it is great, for those of you that like story it is great.. overall it is great rent it, buy it, whichever it is good..
Add another comment
