Strange Invaders (1983)
“I’m a scientist — I know what I saw. I just want somebody to believe me!”
Synopsis: |
Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:
Response to Peary’s Review: … [the] direction is bizarre, [and] characters act uniquely.” However, he posits that “the later scenes are sloppy and more conventional,” and “unfortunately, the final bit in the story virtually erases everything bad that happened earlier” (which is true, though I found this comforting rather than disappointing). Peary asserts that this movie has “a good premise, worth making into a film, but sadly, it doesn’t work.” I’ll agree that Strange Invaders doesn’t quite deliver on what it hopes to do (paying homage to 1950s alien invasion flicks), but I disagree that there are “too many disgusting shots of aliens ripping off their human skins”: they’re not too frequent, and actually really cool-looking. I also appreciate the clever casting of Kenneth Tobey — star of The Thing (From Another World) (1951), The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms (1953), and It Came From Beneath the Sea (1955) — as the lead alien in Centerville, who is either deadly serious or creepily smirking throughout many of his scenes. Redeeming Qualities and Moments: Must See? Links: |
2 thoughts on “Strange Invaders (1983)”
⭐️⭐️⭐️ out of ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
A little sleeper from 1983 that had images of its aliens always being reproduced in magazines like Starburst and Starlog. I missed it at the time and finally caught up with it on DVD nearly twenty years ago. It’s a thoroughly enjoyable and off kilter homage / spoof of ’50s sci-fi flicks shot with a pastel-hazy nostalgic look in anamorphic Panavision.
The performances are quirky and the aliens gleefully nasty as they dissolve humans into glowing orbs of blue light and fire lightening bolts from their fingers. The SPFX and makeup are excellent.
Not a classic but it’s great fun. However, not a significant film in any way so not must see.
Agreed; not must-see, though sci-fi fans will likely appreciate its homage-factor to such films of the ’50s.
All told, the film doesn’t quite gel; its overall point seems to have been fudged. Reportedly, the filmmakers had differences of opinion with the producers, which harmed the film. Acc. to Wikipedia: “The financial backers influence reduced the film’s scope. For example, in the original script, the American government was a much bigger threat, with a big sequence taking place at an Air Force base. These changes bothered Laughlin, because they resulted in a lack of a well-defined middle section in the script.”
‘SI’ comes off as a missed opportunity, with its potential going unrealized. At various points in the film, I thought: ‘Huh?’
A real plus, however, is Lerner’s sensitive and sympathetic performance as the man who lost his wife and children and later assists Le Mat and Allen. (Before his appearance here, Lerner worked largely in television. He has kept quite busy over the years, but I noticed him most prominently – and hilariously – as studio mogul Jack Lipnick in ‘Barton Fink’.)