What made the original version of this film such a classic horror picture? A sense of understatement, of unspoken horror. John Carpenter has never been a director to master the art of understatement, and maybe that's why this movie is such a pale shadow of the 1960 version.<br /><br />The best parts of this film are those that mirror the original. But since the remake was made in the 1990s, Carpenter could throw in grueling childbirth scenes, boiling arms, barbecuing heads, a grisly shootout, an alien baby that looks like one of those 1960s troll dolls in a bottle, and of course, the option of abortion for parents who don't want to go through with their strange pregnancies. In 1960, the idea of an alien "virgin birth" was left understated; Carpenter gives us pregnant women in white robes reaching for the heavens. What happened to the original eerie emphasis on how fast the children grew? I don't recall any mention of that in the remake; in fact, Alley mentions how long she has been observing the children.<br /><br />The most misbegotten idea of all was the addition of Kirstie Alley and the subplot involving government agents SUPPORTING the alien children. And out of nowhere, in a town that seems vaguely Episcopalian (with emphasis on the 'alian'), a wild-eyed bunch of torch-waving fundamentalists appear to confront the children. All we're missing is a fat burgomeister in lederhosen.<br /><br />The eyeball effects are good, adding color change to the original glow (which effect, by the way, still stands up in the B/W version). There are no glaring problems with casting or acting either; this was just an unnecessary and uninspiring remake of a classic film.