Others say...

"Invasion? What invasion?"
What if we were invaded and no one noticed?

The idea of aliens taking over our bodies and then continue civilization as we know it but only without wars and heated arguments probably comes from the 50's Cold War. The Body Snatchers is the 'bottom up' alternative to the top-down Manchurian Candidate, the strategic goal being the same: 'they' take over our minds and 'we' end up with this regimented, full-consensus, beehive-like arrangement. I can see how the prospect would be terrifying to the freedom-loving citizenry in the 50's or the 60's. Better dead than Red. Right?

By the third millennium, the fears have subsided and those 'we' used to admiringly call 'rugged individualists' we call 'extremists' or 'lunatics' now. The Marlboro Man died of lung cancer, lacking adequate health coverage. We are not bees in a hive just yet but the wisdom of moving in that direction is at least debatable and it's viewed as a mainstream topic.

The impression of this remake, while watching it, could be "what's so bad about it"? We live in times where anyone caught with 'water' while boarding a plane is a potentially dangerous enemy. Airports metal-detecting checkpoints post warnings on not telling jokes about things that go 'boom' or risk prosecution and water-boarding. The radio broadcasts commercials on "click it or ticket" and the subways have posters urging patriotic activities such as "see something, say something" - if you are planning to take the New York subway be prepared to have your bags checked.

And... here they come... these dangerous aliens are taking over our bodies and are turning us all into... obedient, cooperative, responsible citizens who recycle, show up for work on time and never cross the street while the "Don't Walk" sign is flashing. We see the police chasing people because their faces express emotions - think of the airport cameras programmed to flag such individuals as possible dangerous elements or think of the New York City subway code of conduct. We hear that the war in Iraq just ended, the Middle East is finally at peace, everyone flushes only once and all follow the rules... what's not to like? See the irony?

On the surface, it's a semi-bad remake of an old classic and that was my exact impression after the first viewing. Then, I watched it again and I saw a little bit more in this movie. The general idea is that maybe we are trending 'there' anyway and, give it another 50 years and, if 'the invasion' came then, it would probably go unnoticed and it might be unneeded. You either stay awake and vigilant at all times, you make no compromises other than doing what it takes to blend and go unnoticed or you are assimilated and all your worries go away.

And, then, there's Nicole.

I took one star because of the slight Hollywoodization but maybe that's the price to pay if you want your movie to be viewed by people other than your friends and the inhabitants of So-Ho.

If you are to watch this movie, I suggest that you plan about watching it twice.

"The Remake"
Saw part of it on TV, but didn't have a chance to see the resolution. I was actually interested enough to make a point to see the end. The movie starts out quite promising. Nichole Kidman is really great in this type of role(See also THE OTHERS). Maybe her encounters with Scientologists prepared her well for the role? The film is a little creepy and does succeed in engaging the viewer, or this one anyway. Upon viewing the ending the response it universly received was understandable.

But I went in with the lowest of expectations and managed to enjoy most of this arguably (somewhat) decent sci-fi flick marred by a very lame, unsatisfying ending. So, here's to low expectations.

But on the other hand I'm always against having low expectations in films. That's what most people do when they say, "It's just a movie" blah, blah, blah.. And I think we should have standards. Maybe, have low expectations for a film that sucks so you can enjoy it for what it's worth while at the same time freely acknowledging it sucks.

"Made Me Hope That They Didn't Find A Cure..."
Somebody has to warn Nicole Kidman to leave classics like this and the very similarly disappointing The Stepford Wives alone. This, the third remake of the 1956 classic (also redone correctly the first time in 1978), is quite frankly all bark and no bite. Gone are the classic pods from another world simply replaced with a virus that makes you all cheesy while you sleep to awaken new, refreshed, and emotionless. At least with the first two films the possessed/aliens got angry from time to time, but in this the group plays the unphased to the point of boredom. At least they tried to make the film different with instead of a young couple running switching it to mostly a mother and her child (who is conveniently immune), but the chase is typical cat and mouse and the ending has to be one of the most upbeat & weakest ones I've seen in quite awhile. Watched off of cable (where it belongs), spend your next money to burn on the excellent 1978 version instead.
(RedSabbath Rating:5.5/10)

"Hollywood ending"
I am a huge fan of the 1978 version of the Bodysnatcher "series" and also liked 1994's offering (I expected it to be pure muck but it was the only action movie left in the store I hadn't seen at the time). I heard all the bad reviews about this before I watched it and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. The claustrophobic atmosphere was created very well.. the subtle hints building to the point which is the scariest of all.. when the aliens needn't bother with stealth any more - that's when you know we're in trouble for sure!
BUT (isn't there always a but!) the film was too short. It didn't give enough time to keep the suspense going. But that's not a major detractor. What is a major detractor is the hollywood happy ending. Please please please can someone involved with this project get the director's/alternaive ending/collector's/blah blah version out there with a different ending! I'll buy it straight away! It was the only thing to mar an otherwise suspensful, well directed movie with acting which was far better than I expected. Overall a slick production and worth buying if you get it cheap.

"JACK FINNEY'S PREMISE IS STILL ALIVE AND WELL"
Jack Finney's science fiction novel INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (serialized is COLLIER'S magazine in 1954; published in book form in 1955) was made into a highly regarded film of the same title in 1956, starring Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter in an intense and heartbreaking political parable of the times. In 1978 it was filmed (with the same title) as a satire of California society, starring Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams, and Leonard Nimoy--and again was quite well received. In a third film version, BODY SNATCHERS: THE INVASION CONTINUES (1994)--starring Gabrielle Anwar, Terry Kinney, Meg Tilly, and Forest Whitaker--the focus seems to be on horror and suspense for their own sake, and although most reviewers rate it below the first two movies, many consider it worth seeing for its young female star if nothing else.

In THE INVASION (2007), the latest remake starring Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig (the newest James Bond), and Jeffrey Wright, Finney's central idea is alive and well: i.e., our "humanity" (for better or worse) can be taken from us by an "alien" life-form. In this outing, the traditional pods are dispensed with and a much more plausible (but far less visually dramatic) virus takes their place. Ms. Kidman's character (a brave, intelligent, and attractive female psychiatrist) is clearly the protagonist of the action, which centers around her attempts to find and rescue her young son, who is important not just to her but to all members of the human race who do not wish to be altered mentally by the virus. (In a sense, Kidman plays a kind of heroic "Ripley" figure, parallel to Sigourney Weaver's roles in the various ALIEN films.)

This film abounds with tense action and dramatic chase scenes--as well as a few tender and/or funny moments between the mother and son; there are also several thought-provoking discussions of human nature that almost seem to have been spliced in to add depth and "serious purpose" to the film. Given the United States' recent and current national divisiveness, parts of this film may lead some viewers to see it as a parable about our religious/political factions. (I think this would be misinterpreting the film's intent.)

As far as the "inner peace" of the infected people is concerned, the script and acting suffer from many inconsistencies--with the disgruntled husband of Veronica Cartwright (who had been in the 1978 remake) and the ex-husband of Kidman among the worse offenders. (But, since logic has usually been sacrificed for the sake of vivid effects throughout 2,500 years of dramatic literature, why quibble about one more instance?)

The ending (which I shall not reveal here) strikes me as a bit "rushed" in the sense that we do not so much SEE the outcome as HEAR ABOUT it in a short voice-over that summarizes the later events in a minute or less. In this one respect, I will say it is comparable to the ending of M. Night Shyamalan's SIGNS (2003), an alien invasion film starring Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix, which I (in the minority) rated very low on several accounts.