LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Stephen Abell It was Ray Bradbury's name that brought this movie to my attention. Just before Christmas and before I started reviewing I had watched, and enjoyed, the original. So there wasn't much choice but to view the sequel... even though it's not. This is actually a brought-up-to-date remake.However, even though it has Bradbury's name it wasn't as good as I hoped it would be. That is probably due to him not having his screenplay filmed. He actually had four screenplays for the movie and none of them was chosen, not for the original and not for this remake (Harry Essex scripted the original while Ken and Jim Wheat have written this one.) I've not read the Bradbury versions, though being a fan I can honestly believe they might be better than what we received here. Since he was still alive when this was filmed I would have asked him to update the script for the modern age. Had there been issues with the original, his gained experience from 1953 to '96 should have been able to smooth them out.That said, Ken and Jim Wheat don't do a bad job of bringing this film up to date. However, they're not too good at characterisation or flow. Though some of this could be down to the director Roger Duchowny. What this needed was an injection of excitement and relatable characters. Most of the people in the town are bleak and depressing; though this is believable, the way they are handled makes them more two-dimensional than possessing deep personalities and was a major cause of my boredom. Even the likes of Elizabeth Pena, Dean Norris, and Mickey Jones who are good actors and had a few decent scene's still couldn't inject life into the dullness.The other cause of my dissatisfaction is the slowness of the pace. This could have been used to create atmosphere and draw the viewer in. Sadly this wasn't the case and only added to the films dullness.The special effects are okay for the period and there are some nice ideas though due to the slow pace and the way they were shown their impact is dulled and not fully utilised. This is one of those films I would recommend to only the die-hard sci-fi fans and lovers of the original film. However, if you want to watch a decent film I'd say watch the original as it's much better on every count, especially if you've never seen it. There's a reason it's a classic and this one is seldom heard of.

Woodyanders A spaceship crash lands in the remote desert. The alien occupants start taking over the minds and bodies of various residents of a sleepy small town. It's up to nice guy city boy photographer Jack Putnam (a solid and amiable portrayal by Brian Kerwin) to figure out what's going on. Director Roger Duchowny makes good use of the dusty'n'desolate desert setting, maintains a steady pace throughout, and does a sound job of creating an absorbing mysterious atmosphere. The capable acting from the fine cast rates as another definite asset: Kerwin makes for a likable protagonist, Elizabeth Pena excels as sweet and hard-working struggling single mother Ellen Fields, Jonathan Carrasco gives an appealing performance as Ellen's lonely and neglected son Stevie, plus there are sturdy contributions from Adrian Sparks as laid-back Vietnam war veteran Alan Paxson, Bill McKinney as the ornery Roy Minter, Dean Norris as the belligerent Dave Grant, Dawn Zeek as shameless tramp Linda Grant, and Mickey Jones as the excitable Chance Madson. The script by Jim and Ken Wheat warrants some praise for deviating a bit from the standard alien invasion formula; in a refreshing twist the extraterrestrials turn out to be benign beings who just want to get back to their home world. Kudos are also in order for Robert C. New's bright, slick cinematography, the nifty special effects, and Shirley Walker's alternately harmonic and ominous score. A neat little flick.

dvdraw this film is so unbelievably awful! everything about it was rubbish. you cant say anything good about this film, the acting, script, directing, effects are all just as bad as each other. even ed wood could have done a better job than this. i seriously recommended staying away from this movie unless you want to waste about 100mins of your life or however long the film was. i forget. this is the first time i wrote a comment about a film on IMDb, but this film was just on TV and i had to let the world of movie lovers know that this film sucked balls!!!!!!!!!!!! so if you have any decency left in you. go and rent a much better bad movie like critters 3

Fern Plumridge Alien body-snatchers in the desert. Little blue rocks that look like they are made from cheap plastic. The overall storyline isn't bad if you like that kind of thing but the acting is so far beyond poor that it amazes me that some of them actually entertained my in The X Files! And the special effects? Hello?! Where did they get their FX crew from, Secondary School? I mean, come on; there was so much more they could have done! It was amateur and extremely basic. I didn't particularly enjoy it (and my Dad fell asleep during it!) And of course our hero falls in love with the leading lady! Its so typical and highly predictable. Bleugh!!!!!