Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) User Reviews

An effective remake showing how horror should be done

[Condemned-Soul · 8/10 · 26 February 2019]

Good, contemporary horror films are scarce. Only a handful of exceptions avoid the bin containing wasted efforts; those horrors that are too often comprised of tired clichés and cheap, ineffective scare tactics, denying them any chance of lingering in the memory and opening the doorway for a slew of pointless sequels of varying crassness. It's easier to search for old classics from the 70s/80s for worthy genre entries. Ones that come to mind are The Thing, The Omen, The Wicker Man, Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, plus others, for their ability to be equally shocking, subversive and entertaining. Perhaps a less viewed horror - yet with a well-known title - is 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' (1978 remake), a profoundly disturbing tale of alien possession that knows how to scare its audience without trying too hard.

The plot: spores from outer space begin duplicating the human race one by one, perfectly copying every detail except for being entirely devoid of emotion. It's a straightforward story that commences immediately with the main threat beginning its quiet invasion. It's up to a few survivors - led by Donald Sutherland's health inspector and his female colleague - to evade a chilling fate, while trying to figure out a way to stop something seemingly unconquerable. Who will survive? Will anyone survive? How can the remaining humans win? Questions like these haunt the runtime, and 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' is so effective because it feels strangely plausible. The narrative funnels you down an increasingly claustrophobic path with no outlet, no room to breathe, then snares you into an ending you won't soon forget. It's an inevitable conclusion, but it's a no less intimidating final image just because it had to happen; a chilling kicker that touches primal fears of isolation and the unknown. Co-starring Jeff Goldblum, Brooke Adams and Leonard Nimoy, everyone does a commendable job of conveying panic, distrust and anxiety.

Director Phillip Kaufman employs gritty camerawork that further manipulates viewers emotions: low angle shots, tremulous zooms, lingering wide shots... these techniques all contribute to the unfolding chaos - the unbeatable alien menace - and ramping up the dread that becomes overwhelming halfway through when survival is paramount but improbable. It's not your typical alien invasion, but the stealthy attack is all the creepier for it, as these plant lifeforms take over family and friends with reckless biological instinct. Seeing people as emotionless automatons is a flesh-crawling prospect, and the screams they illicit when discovering and chasing a survivor owes a lot to the eerie sound design which consistently complements each chilling image.

Overall, 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' succeeds on very simple ingredients. It digs under the skin, coils tighter and tighter as proceedings play out, and relies on paranoia to generate its terror without needing violence and gore. Combined with strong direction, impressive practical effects (for the time) and a nerve-wracking sound design, this is true horror in its simplest form; a terrific blend of sci-fi and horror planting its roots deep for an unsettling experience modern genre efforts should try emulating.

Score - 8.5/10

Alive and richly done, with some great performances!

[secondtake · 8/10 · 9 October 2010]

Invasion of the Body Snatcher (1978)

The original 1950s version of this movie is such a favorite of mine, I hesitated to watch this one. But fear not. This is great, too. It's got the same theme, but very richly and creatively rendered, some superb photography, great night stuff, and most importantly, great acting by the key 3 or 4 people.

Director Philip Kaufman works sporadically as director and writer (he hit it big with "Raiders of the Lost Ark") and he clearly has a unique and somewhat fearless vision that remains rooted in Hollywood sensibilities. That is, this is no independent film, yet it's creative.

And it's scary. Between the development of fear over the actual biological invasion, and the old fashioned chase and hide sequences, this is a tense movie. But yet it's convincing, given the realistic, nuanced acting by the main couple, Donald Sutherland (as a Health Department official) and Brooke Adams (as a lab analyst in the same department). Of course, what happens isn't believable at all, somehow, but it's so close to feasible, and in fact so close to what we live with already (some people without feelings, out for themselves, part of a conspiracy, etc.), it isn't hard to pull it off.

Cinematographer Michael Chapman is about as good as it gets in the Hollywood vein, polished and with amazing, varied lighting (he also did "Raging Bull," "The Fugitive," and "Taxi Driver," for starters). So this movie works on every level. The one thing it isn't, of course, is original, but as a remake, we have to take it for how it handles it, 1970s style. Impressive.

One of the Few Good Remakes- A Sci-Fi Classic

[starlit-sky · 8/10 · 21 January 2011]

Invasion of the Body Snatchers is the remake of 1956 movie by the same title and considered to be, by many fans, to be the definitive and the best version of the story.

The movie begins with images of plasmas from an alien world floating out into space towards planet earth. Then the rain comes and we see an odd organism growing on plants' leafs. Before too long, people start to act strange, they group and exchange plants, they act indifferent to their surroundings, they are emotionless, almost robotic. A group of characters who are not affected soon find themselves a minority in a world that is changing rapidly.

One of the greatest appeals of this movie is its socio-political resonance. It can be interpreted as a state of minority versus majority, us versus them and individualism versus social conformity. It shows how we try to turn the others into a version of ourselves because we can't tolerate the otherness. And maybe this is a universal common trait of all beings whether alien or human. Even though the commentary is about humans, it is actually alien organism that takes over human bodies (snatches human bodies - hence body snatchers).

The movie also questions how much we should sacrifice to achieve harmony in society. Should we preserve our individuality at risk of conflicting with other members of the society, or should we just join the majority, think like others, walk like others and talk like others do? Like all great science fiction movies, the story is social commentary on the state of the world. This is probably the reason why there are so many versions of this movie. And most recently in 2007, another version was made called "The Invasion" starring Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig.

Filmed nightmare

[Mr. Book. · 7 April 2000]

I first saw this film in a movie theater at midnight, as part of an October horror-movie festival. I almost didn't go; I had always had this movie figured as another stupid Hollywood remake of a great film from the past, and thought they were probably only showing it instead of the original because of that weird, vague prejudice against black and white movies that still for some reason permeates this country, even though the novelty of color wore off about forty years ago. But I figured what the hell, it wouldn't hurt to check it out, and when will I get a chance to see any of these movies in a theater again? So I went, and was almost immediately sucked in by the mind-bending direction and the terrific acting. But not only that; it was after midnight, remember, and I was getting sleepy, and I found myself in that kind of hypnotized, pseudo-dreaming state you can get into when you're watching a movie really late at night. I was really into the movie, mind you, but it was like a dream, I wasn't wholly conscious. And just as I was at my most out-of-it, as I was almost technically asleep, the movie hit me with that last shot, you know the one I mean, and jolted me wide awake like a bucket of ice water. It was just like waking up from a nightmare. I thought I was gonna start crying. I haven't been that freaked out by a movie since I was a little kid. As the end credits rolled and the house lights came up, I heard some other people in the theater talking about what a stupid movie it was, man, was that a waste of money, I'm glad it was only three-fifty, and it was a really surreal moment; I've just had one of the most horrifying moments of my waking life, and they're talking about how silly it was (although, truthfully, they may have been a little shaken up themselves and just covering for it, I dunno). A week or so later I was talking about it with my dad, who had seen it when it came out, and I mentioned the ending, and he did a dead-on mimic of the last shot, and I said "God! Don't do that!" I was STILL shaken up by this movie.

There aren't a lot of movies that even try to be frightening--most horror movies (and novels and so on) actually have other concerns: being funny, or shocking, or gory, or surprising, or bizarre, or whatever--and even fewer actually pull it off, actually scare you. Man, does this one pull it off.

Eerie, Suspenseful & 'Classy' Horror/Sci-Fi Effort

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 25 November 2006]

This is a solid horror/sci-fi story with good production values. Those values include outstanding direction by Philip Kaufman, camera-work by Michael Chapman and acting. The cast of main characters was comprised of Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams, Leonard Nimoy, Jeff Goldblum and Veronica Cartwright. Of the group, Sutherland had the most lines and was the most impressive. All of it added up to a pretty classy film, a lot more than you'd except reading the movie title.

There was some profanity and nudity so maybe it wasn't totally classy, but the profanity was light and the nudity was a few shots of Adams' breasts.

The movie clicked because it built up the suspense beautifully, and proved you don't need a lot of violence and gore to scare the viewer. Too bad modern filmmakers of horror films can't seem to understand that. In fact the scariest thing of the movie - and it WAS scary - might have been the eerie noises emanating from the "re-born" humans.

The photography is good and I loved the facial closeups and interesting camera angles. The film is a visual treat. The original film in 1956 is a good one but it's generally conceded this re-make is superior. The star of that first film, by the way - Kevin McCarthy, makes a cameo appearance in here. That was a nice touch.

More logical and exacting than the original

[Agent10 · 7/10 · 8 August 2002]

While some contend the original was a better version, I still prefer this one. Donald Sutherland, Jeff Goldblum and Leonard Nimoy was excellent, providing more logic and insight to the film where the original failed to accomplish. Sure, it was tougher to make a secret invasion of a large city seem more believable, but the more believable and rational appeal of this film puts it heads and tales above the rest. Also, the fact that it is a little more drawn out and conceptualized, it makes for a better night of movie making than the original.

Surely the superlative 'Body snatchers' film

[I_Ailurophile · 10/10 · 14 October 2022]

The 1956 film is an enduring classic; Abel Ferrara's 1993 picture is extra jarring as it emphasizes the horror element. Even as the concept has been explored time and again to various ends throughout different media (the two episodes of sci-fi comedy show 'Eureka' preceding the series finale is a favorite example of mine), somehow I've missed out all these years on this 1978 rendition. Now that I've finally caught up I can't believe it's taken so long: this is utterly phenomenal.

From one variation to the next each adaptation of 'The body snatchers' takes a slightly different approach. The 1978 movie is noticeably longer in its runtime, and more drawn out in its pacing - with the payoff of being distinctly haunting, and arguably more deeply frightening, as the course of events develops. This remains true even as the narrative is slightly more scattered, bouncing around a bit for a time between different scenes and characters, and that's at least in part thanks to the sensibilities of cinematic storytelling that changed in the intervening 22 years: this 'Invasion of the body snatchers' progressively shows us much more as the narrative advances, and whether it's just more creepy and unnatural behavior, or the specific effects and fabrications realizing genre elements, the cumulative effect is intensely unnerving.

That is to say that 'Invasion' successfully builds incredible, pervasive atmosphere that never once yields; I'm rather reminded of the films of John Carpenter, a master of horror whose bread and butter throughout his career has been that same dread air. In some such features it might be one aspect or another, or some combination, that helps to achieve that aura; here, it rather seems that every single facet is discretely bent toward it. Relatively few are those pictures in which sound effects so emphatically contribute to the viewing experience, yet in this instance they are crucial and arresting. From subtle makeup to more advanced prosthetics and special effects, the visuals are all but excruciating (again recalling Carpenter, I say as a major fangirl), bolstered by very careful cinematography, lighting and shadow, and precise orchestration of every shot and scene. At all times Denny Zeitlin's score strikes exactly the right chords - discordant or sweeping, light and sparing or heavy and foreboding - to give further shape to the proceedings. The acting from this terrific cast is perfect and focused across the board; among others, Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams, Jeff Goldblum, and Veronica Cartwright impress with what I'm inclined to think are surely among the best performances they've ever given.

Outstanding production design and art direction adjoin superb filming locations to foster a horrific sense of how solidly rooted and wide-ranging the conspiracy is. Where some scenes pointedly echo the 1956 classic, the rendition here is unquestionably more visceral, more explosive, more fiercely engaging and invigorating. Conversely, Ferrara's treatment is more closely centered on a particular setting, and makes the most of 90s notions of horror within that space - but for as vivid as it may be, to my astonishment the 1978 film still comes out on top in terms of the feelings it imparts, the reactions it elicits. Characters feel more complete and sympathetic, dialogue is more vitally charged and relatable, and at every turn the scene writing and narrative resonate more powerfully. As much as I love Don Siegel's picture, and Ferrara's, from top to bottom this is a more absorbing, spellbinding, menacing, disquieting, fulfilling viewing experience - and outright superior.

Every now and again one watches a movie that so wholly entrances us that it's difficult to find the words to elucidate the joy of watching. We talk in circles, we trip over ourselves, in our exuberance we lose track of some of what we might want to see. 1978's 'Invasion of the body snatchers' is one of those movies. I had high expectations when I sat to watch, for all the reasons, and still they were handily exceeded. What more is there to say? This is a must-see, and that's all there is to it.

A remarkable science fiction tale that still stuns, baffles, and chills.

[punch87 · 9/10 · 14 January 2019]

On top of being an engrossing conspiracy thriller in step with the gritty urban tales of the time, the Invasion of the Body Snatchers is also a genuinely creepy film which slyly suggests there is something sinister beneath the surface.

Donald Sutherland and Brooke Adams discover their friends are being taking over by cold human-duplicates

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 14 November 2011]

This is the second adaptation , still very scary and eerie , about vintage novel deals with San Francisco residents who are being replaced by duplicates hatched from weird pods . It creates an altering the human behaviour in the new invaders. Meanwhile a doctor (top-notch Donald Sutherland) must protect his helper ( significant role for Brooke Adams) and soon aware that pods from outer space are duplicating and replacing everyone there . The doctor may hold the means to avoid the extraterrestrial invasion . The mysterious epidemic from outer space is spread her friends (Art Hindle, Jeff Goldblum , Leonard Nimoy) and San Francisco people , everybody are being take over by emotionless , cold behaving . The mysterious seeds from outer space are growing and destroying San Francisco Bay Area at an alarming attack.

This scary Sci-Fi displays a tense screenplay based on Jack Finney novel titled ¨Body snatchers¨ that can be considered truly disturbing . Packs suspense, chills , thrills, spectacular scenes and pretty turns and twists . Good performances from Donald Sutherland and Veronica Cartwight who subsequently acted in the last version , besides important cameo role by Kevin McCarthy , Donald Siegel and can be glimpsed Robert Duvall . Appropriately rare and frightening musical score by Denny Zeitlin at his last soundtrack . Very good cinematography by the magnificent cameraman John A Alonzo . The motion picture is professionally directed by Philip Kauffman , with great originality in spite of being a remake .

Other versions about this known story are the following : the classic adaptation which emerged as a cinema classic directed by Donald Siegel(1956) with Kevin McCarthy , Carolyn Jones and Dana Wynter, concerning about mysterious seeds duplicating people , it has emerged as a cinema classic that brings astonishing nightmares ; and inferior rendition in which the horror is diminished by Abel Ferrara(1994) that takes place in a military base with Forrest Whitaker , Meg Tilly, Terry Kenney and Gabriella Anwar. Lately recent version that results to be the least satisfactory titled ¨Invasion¨ with Daniel Craig, Nicole Kidman , Jeffrey Wrhight and directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel . Rating : Better than average . Worthwhile watching .

Close enough to get a cigar, but not as good as the original

[BrandtSponseller · 8/10 · 9 February 2005]

Shortly after Elizabeth Driscoll (Brooke Adams) discovers a strange plant in her San Francisco-area yard that she cannot identify, her boyfriend begins acting strangely--he looks the same, but Elizabeth swears he's a different person. Before long, more and more people are claiming the same thing about their friends and relatives. Just what is going on? Although not quite as good as the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), this remake is very interesting and well worth a watch. Some things it does better than the original, although slightly more is not done as well. But it is full or intriguing ideas, some beautiful cinematography, and quite a few quirky charms.

One oddity about this film is that it seems to assume that very few people will watch who aren't already familiar with the original. Scripter W.D. Richter and director Philip Kaufman give away the "twist" immediately, and there are a number of statements from characters in this film (such as the first time we hear the advice to not fall asleep) that only make sense if one already knows from Don Siegel's original just why they shouldn't fall asleep. For this reason, I strongly recommend that anyone interested in this film who hasn't seen it yet should make sure they watch the original first.

The opening shots, which firmly set this remake into sci-fi territory, are a great idea, even if the execution is somewhat questionable. I'm not sure that Kaufman's "art gel" works, and the way it moves through space, as if blown by trade winds, is slightly hokey. But I'm willing to forgive a misstep if it's in service of a great idea, and especially if the misstep is the result of budgetary limitations.

Early in the film, the major asset is the cinematography. There is an excellent, slow tracking shot down a hallway, where we only see our main character by way of her feet and a slight reflection in a window. There are a lot of great "tilted" shots. There are a lot of subtle lighting effects to set mood, and a just as many subtle instances of symbolism for the horrors to come.

The cast, featuring Adams, Donald Sutherland, Jeff Goldblum, Leonard Nimoy and Veronica Cartwright, is an interesting combination of stars who tend to give idiosyncratic performances. Kaufman exploits the collection of personalities well, although occasionally gives us odd "everyone talk at once" scenes which can verge on the brink of annoying. Although I'm not usually the biggest fan of Goldblum (in some roles, such as The Fly, I like him, in some roles he tends to irritate me), I noted an odd similarity between him in this film and an actor and performance I'm much more fond of--David Duchovny and his X-Files character Fox Mulder.

Speaking of that, there is a strong X-Files vibe to this film overall. Whereas the original Invasion had thinly veiled subtexts of fear and doubts of "The Other"--whether politically-rooted (the common analysis is that the original Invasion was a subtext for U.S. fears of communism), religiously-rooted (some see it as a parable about cults, or religions in general) or simply about personal identity (in a philosophical sense of "Who am I/are you?" "What makes one oneself?"), Kaufman's take has stronger subtexts of encroaching mental illness--fear of losing one's mind and a generalized, "clinical" paranoia.

Given that difference, it's perhaps odd that there are so many similarities between the two films. The character structure and relationships are largely the same, with some mostly insignificant differences, including slightly different occupations. There are many scenes taken almost verbatim from the original film, often only with differences of setting, but staged the same, with similar scenarios and occasionally identical dialogue. There is even a wonderful moment where Kevin McCarthy, star of the original film, comes running down the street, screaming that we're all doomed.

A number of quirky moments push the value of Kaufman's film up a notch. These are sprinkled throughout the film, but some highlights are a Robert Duvall cameo as a priest inexplicably on a swingset next to toddlers, the "mud bath" parlor, a brief spurt of marvelous, Zappa-sounding avant-garde classical as we witness a chase down a staircase, and a greenhouse in a shipping yard, through which Elizabeth eventually strolls naked, casually walking by employees. The "creature" effects may be better here than in the original, but they are not more effective for that.

But overall, this is a great film. Just make sure you don't miss the superior original.

Classic!

[zeelu-89550 · 7/10 · 31 March 2020]

I hadn't seen this film in about 20 years, and now after watching it current day, it's just as good if not better now. No CGI, and I like that... The cast, and acting is really good, Donald Sutherland delivers an amazing performance. The cinematography is awesome! I highly recommend this as a must watch for any Sci-fi and/or Horror fan.

Respectable remake, but not as good as original

[dcshanno · 5/10 · 20 October 2004]

The original 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' is one of my favorites. There were so many films from the 1950s that involved an alien threat menacing small town Americana, but 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' was one of the few standouts because it took what it was doing seriously. Not another in a long series of man-in-a-rubber-suit movies, its tactics were more psychological. We, like Dr. Bennell, are uncertain what's going on or even if there actually *is* anything going on until its too late. Then the walls close in on the doctor and Becky, and nowhere is safe, there is nowhere to hide. Added to this is the film's ambiguous subtext, and you end up with a movie that really is much better than it should be.

While I don't think the remake was bad necessarily, I don't think there's anything remarkable about it either. It was good for what it was, but it lacked any real suspense because it began by revealing the threat and then rushed to get that threat underway. Setting the film in a large city was a mistake. One of the strengths of the original was the confusion and horror the characters felt as they slowly watched the people around them, the people they had grown up with and known so well, become strangers. That element's lost when you set the movie in a place where nearly everyone is a stranger to begin with, where you wouldn't know if the person walking down the street is different today than they had been the day before. I also think the third act is overly long and drags out.

Kudos to the man-faced dog, though. That was great.

Excellent remake of the 1950s paranoid classic. ALMOST as good as the original.

[Infofreak · 25 April 2003]

The original 'Invasion Of The Body Snatchers' is one of my favourite thrillers of all time, and a very hard movie to top. I'm always sceptical about remakes of classic horror and SF films, but this version by Philip Kaufman is much better than one would expect, and ALMOST as good as the original. I still think Don Siegel's version is the best because it really evokes small town life in middle America, and that makes the horror and suspense all the more effective. Kaufman transplants the setting to San Francisco and the big city location means it loses its sense of intimacy and community, and instead has more of an alienated urban feel to it. But it's still an excellent movie, and along with Cronenberg's 'The Fly' and Carpenter's 'The Thing' the most successful remake of a 1950s horror classic to date. What really helps this movie is the cast. Donald Sutherland, one of the 1970s most interesting and intelligent actors, is excellent in the main role, played by Kevin McCarthy in the first film. And the lovely Brooke Adams ('Days Of Heaven', 'The Dead Zone', 'The Unborn') is first rate as the main female lead, her role being much more substantial than Dan Wynter's in the original. I've had a major crush on Adams ever since I first saw this movie. She is beautiful but goofy and I really thought she was going to be a major star. The supporting cast is excellent, led by the wonderful Jeff Goldblum and 'Alien's Veronica Cartwright, and of course Leonard Nimoy, in his most memorable non-Trek role. Also keep an eye out for cameos by the star and director of the original version (Kevin McCarthy and Don 'Dirty Harry' Siegel), and a very brief but eerie one by Robert Duvall! 'Invasion Of The Body Snatchers' is a superb example of how to remake a horror classic, and is one of the creepiest and most nerve-wracking thrillers of the 1970s. I highly recommend it and the original 'Body Snatchers', they are two of the scariest movies ever made!

I Was Pleasantly Surprised.....and Scared!

[gab-14712 · 8/10 · 18 October 2017]

I have never been a fan of horror movies or remakes because they are usually not good. But when done right, they can be special movies. Invasion of the Body Snatchers happens to be both a remake and a horror movie, so I had my doubts. Luckily, this is a really good movie. This film is based off the 1956 film of the same name, and I hear it is a good movie. So when a remake at least equals the quality of the original, then that means you did something right. Most people seem to agree that this movie equals the same horror tone as the original, but it passes it in terms of conception. There are many themes this movie expanded on. Such themes include paranoia, the idea of dehumanization whether it's mentally or quite literally in the case of this movie. You could also talk about the idea of the lack of trust of people in an increasing complicated world. The original had roots in communism as the 1950's were known for paranoia as the Cold War escalated. You could easily see the transfer of those ideas in this film. Paranoia is rampant as these invisible alien creatures take over human bodies and minds. These ideas really created the tension and horror that the movie needed.

This science-fiction remake is sent in the city of San Francisco, California. One day, Elizabeth Driscoll (Brooke Adams) complains to her good friend Matthew Bennell (Donald Sutherland) that her husband has been acting very strange. Bennell originally dismisses the thought as marital problems. But when more people start complaining, he becomes increasingly concerned. When writer Jack Bellicec (Jeff Goldblum) and his wife Nancy (Veronica Cartwright) uncover a mutated corpse, Bennell realizes that the world has been taken over by an unseen force. Now it's up to him to beat the clock before the whole city turns into mutants.

The film does have a good cast, and they all turned in solid performances. Donald Sutherland is a great actor, and he showed himself some range here. Brooke Adams made a name for herself earlier in 1978 with Days of Heaven, and she turns in another good performance. Jeff Goldblum is an amazing actor as you will see in future movies, but he is really good in one of his earlier roles in this film. One of the best performances in the film comes from the amazing Leonard Nimoy. You might know him from his iconic role as Spock in the original Star Trek television series. He is usually typecast as similar characters in his movies, but this role as Dr. David Kibner gives him something fresh, something different. He plays more of a villainous character, and it's a welcome sight.

The production design adds to the horror elements. The look of the movie is creepy and sometimes downright scary. The pods where humans are transformed are wonderfully scary. When the movie shows how these humans are transformed is the ultimate prize when it comes to being scared. Any fan of horror would appreciate this.

Overall, I really enjoyed the 1978 version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers much to my surprise and delight. It succeeds in giving me the creeps, but in such intelligent ways. It's a thematic film touching on concepts of paranoia-which was a very popular concept considering what was going on in the world at the time. So remember if you see any pods nearby, well lets hope it is not an invisible alien making you its next prey. After all, I became a little paranoid for a few days after I saw the movie.

My Grade: B+

Different from the original but better

[searchanddestroy-1 · 10/10 · 4 November 2022]

It is so rare that a remake is better than a genuine material. Here, the difference may be a matter of taste, because both movies are very different in the process of production and acting, photography and music score, different in terms of atmosphere too, though the scheme is exactly the same. But this seventies version is absolutely terrific, awesome, in the substance of the paranoiac atmosphere of this decade. It would have been interesting to watch a version in the sixties, ten years after the Don Siegel's film, made in the fifties. Maybe it would have been also different. The Abel Ferrarra 's film from the nineties was a mess for me, as far as I remember. I should watch it again. Anyway, this Phil Kaufman's movie is awesome, I repeat, and the ending so shocking, ungorgettable. Don Sutherland is as good as in KLUTE, emphasized by this unique atmosphere.

As Good If Not Better Than The Original Because of the Characters and razor-sharp Dialogue

[classicalsteve · 9/10 · 15 August 2010]

Let me start out by saying that I am very fond of the original movie of 1956. But the biggest difference between the two films is the handling of the characters and the use of camera angles that ring of film noir. The characters of the 1956 offering are just a little bit generic. Dr Miles Bennell is an "ordinary" doctor in an ordinary town. Handsome and amiable, he does seem a bit "typical". The two couples that become the main focus are a little bit less defined, which was true of B-movie horror/SF flicks of the 1940's and 1950's in which the horror of the plot trumped character development. By the 1970's, horror had to some degree become more mainstream, and character development became nearly as important as the shock value in some of the higher-budgeted offerings. "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Exorcist" come to mind.

The four characters of the 1978 film are quite distinctive individuals. Matthew Bennell (played by Donald Sutherland and essentially the equivalent character to Miles Bennell) is a bureaucratic FDA inspector who gets his car windshield smashed when he tags a restaurant for sub-standard quality. His best friend is Elizabeth Driscoll (Brook Adams) who is a fun-loving woman with a rye sense of humor and married to a sports fanatic.

Both of the Jack Bellicec characters are writers, although in the 1978 offering, Jeff Goldblum's take on the role is as a very frustrated writer/poet who is jealous of the likes of Dr. David Kibner (Leonard Nimoy), pop-psychologist, writer and lecturer. Jack attends one of Kibner's lectures and book-signings. Nimoy plays his character to the hilt, acting like he has the answer to all people's problems. Goldblum at one point says "His ideas are garbage. Pure garbage." response: "How can you say that about a man like Kibner?" Goldblum: "Not a man like Kibner. I'm saying it about Kibner." We never find out what the character wrote about in the 1956 offering. Nancy Bellicec played by the incomparable Veronica Cartwright in the newer offering becomes a much more important character than in the 1956 film. She's the one, not Bennell, who realizes how to fool the "snatched" people by exhibiting no emotions. She has one of the best lines when she says "Well why not a space flower? Why do we always expect metal ships?

Their lives start to fall apart when Elizabeth Driscoll claims her husband Geoffrey is not her husband. Before he is snatched, he is an amiable guy who enjoys watching sports events with headphones to hear the announcers. After he's snatched, all he watches on the television is a video of a stop-watch, as if for him life has stopped, and he's just marking time. She recounts to Sutherland how she followed him and that he was meeting all these strange people. Sutherland encounters others with similar dilemmas, particularly an older Asian couple who own a Laundromat. The older man claims "she not my wife." The build-up in the 1978 offering is a little slower and more deliberate.

Jack's wife, Nancy Bellicec (Cartwright), discovers a duplicate body of Jack in a back room of their mud bath. At first the body seems to have almost no detail. But gradually it begins to look like Goldblum. Is there any connection with this body and this epidemic of people claiming that their loved ones are not their loved ones? In a particularly brilliant if not disturbing sequence, Bennell tries to call some of his contacts in the US government. The camera angles work well to literally dizzying affect as Bennell begins to realize the snatchers have infiltrated the government.

An incredible take on Jack Finney's original novel about the horror of losing one's identity to an emotionless collective, sort of akin to what it would be like to have to spend eternity with either Jehovah Witnesses or Beaurocrats! You are no longer you but simply a clone among the collective, a terrifying thought.

That not my wife

[Chase_Witherspoon · 7/10 · 16 October 2010]

Superior to the Nicole Kidman remake, this taut thriller remains a little less convincing than its 1956 predecessor of which that film's star (Kevin McCarthy) has a memorable cameo in this revision, picking up where his character left off in the original running frantically on the streets, warning motorists of the imminent invasion

The story revolves around Sutherland playing a health inspector who is inadvertently alerted to the possibility of humans being replaced by alien lookalikes. Ostensibly the same as the human predecessor, these aliens display a withdrawn and distant emotion which is ultimately the key to detecting their false identity. In the chaos that ensues, Sutherland teams with Brooke Adams, Jeff Goldblum and Veronica Cartwright, while Leonard Nimoy makes his most significant acting contribution outside of "Star Trek" as the offbeat psychiatrist with all answers.

Some memorable scenes and dialogue delivers suspenseful moments (the laundromat husband concerned about the changes in his wife's demeanour is pretty chilling) and overall it's a terrific sci-fi thriller. Probably a bit overlong, there' still enough suspense to entertain, and in the context of a remake (and in particular, one that remakes a classic sci-fi), director Kaufman has not disappointed.

Scary!

[gridoon · 8/10 · 14 August 2000]

The story we have here, filmed once before in 1956 (I haven't seen that version) and once again later, in 1994, is so strong and thought-provoking that even a just-adequate film based on it would be quite effective. This 1978 remake goes beyond "just-adequate", though. It's a creepy, scary chiller, and also one of the most intellectual films of this genre I've ever seen. Maybe it lags in a few places, but excellent performances, methodical direction and a LITERALLY chilling finale make it first-class entertainment. (***)

The women know!

[Nemesis42 · 9/10 · 13 October 2020]

A truely riveting story. It's interesting how the female characters are the first ones to realise and insist that people are being copied, while the men are lethargic in their acceptance of it.

The pace and realism are strong. It gets further and further under the skin as the film progresses. Uniquely frighting and intriguing. All subsequent versions don't par with this. I've not seen the original yet. Heard that's the best. Well done Kaufman and team.

It can drag a bit, but the third act is worth the suspense

[siradofsteel · 7/10 · 15 May 2023]

This movie is truly unique in the way it makes me feel a range of emotions each time I watch it. While it is a terrific film, it unfortunately has an erratic pacing that makes it a bit too slow and drawn out. This movie has some truly horrific scenes and a strong tension, but I can't help but feel it could have been a bit more fast-paced. The camera angles and locations used are incredibly artistic and stunning, and the ending was a pleasant surprise. It does have a somewhat robotic feel that can be a bit off-putting. Despite this, the movie still relies on a gripping sense of intense paranoia and it succeeds in creating a tension that is nearly unbearable. I really respect this movie for its amazing acting and great scares, making it a worthwhile watch for those looking for something a bit more suspenseful.

Very Average. Overall a Disappointment

[jbartelone · 4/10 · 16 September 2007]

I found the special effects to be the only thing of strong value in this movie. It involves a health department and scientific research team investigating why people are becoming zombie-like shortly after going to sleep. I liked the beginning of the movie the best. The viewer is drawn into some clever outer-space camera shots. One feels that this is going to be good.

But than, it dies. The dialog is predictable and corny. Even the good actors can not make up for them being forced into B-grade Sci-Fi acting. Invasion of the Body Snatchers seems to drag on and on with very little to excite the viewer. In fact it was on one of my local stations last night and I kept falling asleep missing the last half hour of the movie! To achieve a great sci-fi effect that is everlasting to the viewer, there needs to be a suspense or build up that is maintained throughout the film. A few screams here and there over some strange corpses would be something that you would expect from a 50's horror film. This would be good for its time, but not enough for a 1978 film, which incidentally is a remake.

With this film coming out the year after Close Encounters of the Third Kind and the Star Wars phenomenon, one would expect better pacing in this film. IOTBS appears to have been put together with several characters that don't get into a weak plot, combined with a 50's type script. Good special effects can not save this weak movie.

It's too bad that the quality cast ensemble didn't have a stronger, faster-paced, script to showcase their acting abilities so that this film could have been better.

A forgotten classic.

[repojack · 8/10 · 17 January 2021]

I think I know why 1978's Invasion of the Body Snatchers doesn't get more love.

I watched this many years ago as a teenager on TV and thought it was ok. I've never sought out to see it again as it didn't really make an impression.

After an uninterrupted re-watch in HD I was totally blown away. The first five minutes are mesmerizing as we are taken on the journey of an invasive species that eventually lands on earth and mimics a flower which ultimately is placed by the bedside of the protagonist's boyfriend.

Thus begins the journey of how humankind is replaced by unemotional replicas.

The practical effects are outstanding for its time. It masterfully builds a feeling of dread as you don't know who you can trust (ala The Thing).

And that fantastic, screech of an ending! This is going on my top 10 sci-fi horror list ( boxd.it/945OA ).

Excellent take on a brilliant story

[The_Void · 8/10 · 8 February 2005]

Phillip Kaufman's adaptation of Jack Finney's classic novel had a lot to live up to after the classic 1956 take on it - and I think it lived up to expectations. Though not as great as the more politically orientated original, Kaufman's film is still a lesson in suspense and the central story has lost none of the intrigue that it captured in the original. The story follows an alien life form that has come from outer space and taken residence here on earth. Not content with living in sibilance with humans, the aliens become 'body snatchers' and make duplications of people while they're sleeping. These duplicates take the original host's place and are everything their originals were, only all forms of emotion vanish. Our story takes focus on Martin and Elizabeth, two workers at the US Health Department. After taking home a supposedly new type of flower, Elizabeth finds her boyfriend acting strangely and later discovers that she's not the only one with relatives who aren't quite themselves...

This film works because of a constant sense of paranoia. In the 1950's, this was tied in with the then 'reds under the beds' idea of communism spreading through capitalist America. This film seems to have dispensed with that idea, which gives way to more opportunity for sci-fi horror, which is more than welcome in my opinion. The special effects on display are bold and lavish, and therefore exciting to watch. They are a little hokey, but still not bad at all - the parts where you see the alien duplicate forming are fantastically gruesome, and also rather frightening. The whole idea of the film is frightening, even in spite of the fact that it ever happening is very unlikely. The idea that an alien race can take over almost an entire city in one night, and without anyone realising it, is not one that I'd like to have if I was a paranoid conspiracy theorist! Then there's the notion that they'll get you if you sleep as it's like one man in the film says..."gotta sleep sometime". Invasion of the Body Snatchers is also notable for featuring a great cast, which not only includes the excellent Donald Sutherland and the beautiful Brooke Adams, but also Jeff Goldblum (in his first of two successfully good remakes) and Leonard Nimoy, a.k.a. Captain Spock from Star Trek. Also watch out for cameos from original Invasion of the Body Snatchers director Don Siegel and said film's star.

Visceral update that's pretty good

[BroadswordCallinDannyBoy · 7/10 · 25 September 2007]

An update of the classic from 1956.

The plot is basically the same with strange pods landing this time in San Francisco. Soon certain people are not quite who they were before lacking all emotional touch they used to have. A small group of people not yet taken by the pods, figure this out and try to do something, but the situation looks hopeless.

As with most remakes the film suffers on many levels. First and foremost anyone who has seen the first will not be in for much surprises since the plot and development is all very similar if not the same. The pods are even shown landing in the beginning of the film, which was a poor move since within the first 2 minutes people who HAVEN'T seen the original will know more than they should to totally enjoy the story. Much of the ambiguity is unnecessarily made clear in those moments and the original was ambiguous well into the film and you never knew more than the characters. Here that is not the case. Even as the pods begin to "awaken" (for lack of a better word) there is a pretty big focus on special effects with all sorts of tentacles going up peoples' noses and ears. I don't know about you, but if a slimy tentacle went up my nose, I think I'd stop breathing and sort of notice. The purely mental connection from the first one was more terrifying. As is small town setting where everyone knows everyone. The big city seems like a good place to place an update of the original, but the spread and suspicions as well as the fears of the protagonists aren't nearly as intense as they were in the first. Perhaps it is due to the general lack of suspense I felt since I have seen the original. First time viewers of the "Body Sntachers" films will undoubted have more to be tense about.

However, this version does deserve credit for some innovation. The twist on the dog scene from the original is a REAL GOOD jolter. There is a fairly big consistency from the original that has been fixed in that we learn what happens to bodies after the pod clone is born. And the special effects aren't bad, quite gruesome actually, but they almost outrun themselves. --- 7/10

Rated PG, pretty generously, for violence and horror. Ages 13+.

She Was Correct! (This time.)

[cro25 · 10/10 · 15 June 2014]

This is my favorite sci-fi/horror hybrid movie.

I agree with Pauline Kael who said it is "The best science fiction movie ever made." It's flawless. Donald Sutherland has never been better. Jeff Goldblum was allowed to be as unhinged as possible. Brooke Adams is absolutely lovely. Cute as a button, and those eyes! How she does that 'trick" with rolling her eyes is a mystery to me. And Veronica Cartwright was as loony as she was in "Alien." She's terrific. It's creepy, which is much more effective than "scary." Yet when it wants to, it can scare the pants off you. (Think of the banjo player and his dog.) There's little things that require repeat viewings; such as all the garbage trucks, or people behind translucent glass doors simply watching as Sutherland and Adams talk in a hallway. The weird floor polisher, who just happens to be Michael Chapman, the film's cinematographer. Its cameos are so clever, they're brilliant. Kevin McCarthy screaming "You're next!" obviously recalls the later-added bumpers from the original. And Don Seigel even plays an odd cab driver! I love it. I like Philip Kaufman's other movies, but he never made another film as perfect as this. To paraphrase Ms. Kael, it's as close to perfect as a movie can get.