Cannon Film Distributors released Tobe Hooper’s remake of Invaders From Mars on 6 June 1986. I enjoy it a lot, but it isn’t one of my favorites.
So why am I talking about it today? Because critics have hated it and continue to do so.
Let me take a review from Time Out that is actually better than most. It says:
“The effects are magnificent, but whereas the original worked by building up an increasingly black mood, this version relies almost entirely on the special effects; and such limited brooding tension as it has is gratuitously undermined by a string of sequences played purely for laughs.”
So this version of the film works almost entirely by using special effects? I don’t agree with that at all. But if that were the case, why is it a bad thing? Why is building up a black mood the correct way to go? Should this version of the film do that too? I know what the critic would have said if the film had done that, “This version just repeats what was done better in 1953”!
Then we learn that the limited brooding tension that the film managed was destroyed by its comedic elements. If I didn’t know better, I’d think the filmmakers hadn’t actually been going for the “black mood” of the original.
“Not What I Wanted to See!”
This has got to be the single most annoying film criticism: “This film was not at all what I wanted to see!” Feature films generally take years to make. There’s a really good chance that what is up on the screen is what the filmmakers wanted.
I understand: sometimes you just don’t like a film. You wish it had gone in another direction. But I fail to see how this is a criticism of the film. It’s like complaining that you didn’t like Eaten Alive because you were really more in a comedy mood.
Even if you think a film critic is just an ombudsman, how is that helpful? The Time Out review ends, “Fun, but very silly.” Okay. That would have made a better complete review. It would have warned potential viewers that this film with its obviously cheeky 1950s science fiction film title will not be like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.
Good, I guess? Regardless, let’s watch Invaders From Mars. Some say it is fun, but very silly.
Other 6 June Anniversaries
Filmmakers
- Richard Crane (1918-1969): Actor known for Rocky Jones, Space Ranger, The Alligator People, and more.
- Robert Englund (1947-): Actor known for his work with Tobe Hooper and, of course, A Nightmare on Elm Street.
- Sandra Bernhard (1955-): Actor known for The King of Comedy.
- Paul Giamatti (1967-): Actor known for many things including The Negotiator and John Dies at the End.
Films
- The Bowery Boys Meet the Monsters (1954): The Boys face a gorilla and a robot.
- Galaxina (1980): Science fiction treasure hunt.
- Con Air (1997): Prisoners take over a transport plane.
- 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003): Cop goes undercover in race culture, surprisingly.
- Beyond the Wall of Sleep (2006): Film based on the Lovecraft story.
- The Omen (2006): The Devil’s son is rebooted.
- Vampire Chicks With Chainsaws (2006): Vampire falls for vampire hunter.
- Zombeak (2006): Zombie birds? Comedy, obviously.
- The Abandoned (2008): The savior of humanity must be delivered somewhere.
- The Dead Walk (2008): Zombies begin.
- Kung Fu Panda (2008): Panda becomes kung fu master.
- Chrome Angels (2009): Biker chicks vs cyborgs.
Invaders From Mars (1986) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.
Well, for one thing, most critics — most widely-read-ones of that period — were just clods. They were people who knew what the mass audience liked/didn’t like, because they WERE that mass audience. They were the people who praised Dances With Wolves. So their opinions were worthless.
I do think there’s some virtue in critics saying, “I understand what this movie was shooting at, but I don’t think it got there, and here, specifically, is why.”
(Also, and this is just my experience… what’s funny and what’s not is just so gonna vary from person to person that it’s hard to write about. I can understand good drama from almost any culture/country I’ve seen it from. But there’s things that are funny in other countries which make me go “huh”? Even some wildly popular Canadian stuff.)
I have traded notes some with another film blogger who REALLY likes stuff I don’t, but I like his writing, and he says one should be more into advocacy than tearing stuff down. I appreciate this perspective. I lose more readers by shitting on something they like than I gain them by praising something unknown that people are looking for online posts about. (I do get some readers that positive way and I’m sure you do, too.)
But damn, what’s a friggin’ blog for if you can’t just unload on some piece of s**t that annoyed you, every now and then… famous & praised as it may be.
(I’m still sticking to my guns about never dissing a little movie that tried and failed and nobody noticed. And I’ve seen a LOT that did. But they don’t piss me off. Sitting through three hours of The Brutalist… that made me MAD!)
Who is this writer?! I completely agree: I see my purpose as being about advocating for films I think people should see. But I also understand that it is really hard to ignore a really bad film. Often, it’s easy. I have no problem attacking James Nguyen (Birdemic), because he clearly doesn’t really like films. Either that or he’s so incompetent that he needs to be stopped. But criticizing him does go against my general rule that you don’t criticize low-budget filmmakers. Clearly, there films have problems that are entirely due to financial constrains. But that isn’t the case with Nguyen.
I know I’ve said this before but it is worth repeating. Book criticism is the opposite of film criticism. Books rarely get bad reviews. Instead, they are just ignored. The bigger the budget of a film, the more critics will write about it. I know that is not what you are doing. You can’t grab a film, hate it, and then not write about it. But that isn’t at all what these critics are doing!
The writer does this site: https://www.signal-watch.com/?m=1
It’s got a lot of stuff about comic books and Hallmark movies (!), but the writer also blogs about old noir films of the 40s/50s and has a fresh way of responding to them.
It’s interesting that while most “serious” critics today are far better writers than those 80s ones (being better than Maltin is, granted, a low bar to hurdle), they have the same herd instinct. They largely praise the same things (movies like Hamnet, etc.) because that’s what gets clicks. They are trying so hard to be hip for a readership that tries so hard to be hip!
While I never want to watch a Hallmark movie ever again for the rest of my life, I respect a writer who doesn’t care about being hip and enjoys the Hallmark movies with performers who give their best in shoddy material.
And I really don’t write about most bad movies I see (which is a chunk of them). But I’m basically writing for my friends, most of whom are curious about classic or highly-praised movies. If a classic or highly-praised movie is bad… it’s fair game, to me. Paul Thomas Anderson is not losing sleep at night, throwing his Oscars into the fire and going “Fillmore hates me, I am a fraud.” (Fillmore does and he is.) Neither is Fellini, ‘cuz he is dead.