Invasion Of The Body Snatchers: Collectors Edition due 8/7/07 (1 Viewer)

[Joe Karlosi]

Great news. This is one of those rare times I prefer a later version to the original.

 

[Paul_Scott]

I love both quite a bit. I don't think I could ever pick a favorite between them- The original is without a doubt my favorite 50s sci-fi film, though the remake is the one I would probably pull out to watch more often. In particular, I've come to appreciate it over the last 10-15 years because it's focused on adults. In the wake of Halloween, and for the last 30 years, a horror/thriller film with adult protagonists has become a rare and beautiful thing. I also really dig Nimoys character and performance and the conflict there with Goldblum. Fun stuff.

 

[Radioman970]

All this remake love!

Now, how about the second attempt at a remake? Body Snatchers. Very meh even though there's some excellent babeage. Any flick with a Tilly gets an instant endorcement from me.

 

[Henry Gale]

How about the third:

The Invasion (2007)

Coming August 17th.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Hopefully the featurette that was advertised on the back cover of the first DVD release of this, but wasn't actually on the disc (the BASTARDS), will make it this time.

 

[Rob Foss]

Sorry to say this but I thought Kaufman's remake was unremittingly average from start to finish. Setting the invasion in a major city was a serious misjudgment on the part of the filmmakers. Cities are impersonal places anyway so where's the dramatic tension in placing emotionless pod people in a location that is itself impersonal? The original derived much of its power from the small town setting & the fact that everybody knew everybody else. And I don't think Donald Sutherland & Brooke Adams were anywhere near as appealing as Kevin McCarthy & Dana Wynter were. It isn't terribly well plotted either. I've never quite understood why some people seem so passionate about this 1978 version unless it's a nostalgia thing.

Oh, and a shoutout to that other Invasion remake, Abel Ferrara's Body Snatchers (1993), which wisely keeps the action to an enclosed setting, in this case a military base. While nothing equals Don Siegel's original I found this one more scary & memorable than Kaufman's misfire.

 

[Kevin M]

That's the entire point of the film, the 50's version was an allusion to Communism (as well as the resultant Mccarthy-ism IMO) while the 70's version dealt with the fear of intimacy, the crushing coldness of humanity in mass (The City), the death of empathy in the wake of the "Me" generation & the fact that an invasion of cold emotionless aliens might go unnoticed in an environment such as that.

I think it was a brilliantly plotted and directed film.....and not because of.."nostalgia".

 

[Radioman970]

Henry, I'd never heard of Invasion. Looks to have a great cast, Kidman will get me in a seat. :p Hope all the reshooting mentioned on imdb.com worked. Could be interesting if they can capture the doom and groom that the others have to varying degrees.

That 90s remake had one great scene, the kid in the school classroom holding up his painting. It really needed more of that kind of thing. I actually see what you're saying Rob. It's kind of like Village of the Damned with the small isolated area. But I still prefer the 70s remake for much of the same reasons as Kevin M. Although I harbor a lot of nostalgia for it (and the original).

 

[Rob Foss]

That's the entire point of the film,

LoL, I just knew someone would say that. But the thing is Kevin, Kaufman's remake has nothing original or interesting to say about the fear of intimacy, despite the fact that such a theme is an intrinsic part of the Bodysnatcher idea. Siegel's original dramatized that theme with subtlety and persuasion FAR more effectively than the '78 remake. Kaufman's attempt to relocate the action to a big city is, I think, the kind of smart ass conceit that might have sounded good in theory but completely fails in practice.


The plotting is muddled at best. The film is confusingly told. What exactly did you find so 'brilliant' about Kaufman's plotting and directing? The '78 version boasts a cast of genre favourites and it's slickly made. That's it.

 

[Kevin M]

Well...that's your opinion, & obviously many disagree with that opinion.
I haven't got time to elaborate on it but I will start a thread in the Movies section (or I will look for an already existing one...there probably are a few) so we all can talk about both films.

 

[RickER]

The original, and '78 version both have a place on my shelf! If you dont like one or the other, or either, thats fine. Dont rain on our parade man!

 

[Steve Christou]

Over the years I've watched the 1978 version a lot more than the classic original. I'd hate to have to choose between the two but if pressed I'd opt for the remake (or sequel as some people see it). Looking forward to the special edition hopefully picture and sound have been improved.

But it's a crime the original 1956 classic hasn't had the respect it deserves on DVD, it's 50's brethren Day The Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds and Forbidden Planet have all had special edition sets devoted to them. Maybe when the next remake surfaces...

 

[Gordon McMurphy]

There's no such thing as "that's it" when it comes to subjective views on art. If there was, I would say: "Gone with the Wind is an overblown piece of hysterical bollocks. That's it."

 

[Radioman970]

I actually kind of agree with you here. But don't you seen how this fact can actually help the film? A sense of confusion creates a sense of paranoida.

Anyway, I couldn't agree more that the original needs a worthy DVD release alongside the 78 one. I'd buy both in a heartbeat since I don't even have the original on VHS.

 

[Chris Tedesco]

I just found out about this today. Anyone find out if it's going to be anamorphic?

 

[Gary Seven]

The original is a wide screen film. Why would they not release this in anamorphic? It's not academy ratio.. more like to 2:1.

I have the Criterion LD release of the film where they have a great comparison of this film in wide-screen vs pan and scan in the features section.

As I recall, Kevin MacCarthy stated that the original had nothing to do with a communism commentary but of course that is open to debate.

I like the original and the remake although the remake plays as more of sequel. I liked the Kevin McCarthy cameo in the "remake".

 

[Patrick McCart]

It was meant to be shown in the regular "flat" format, maybe 1.85:1. The problem was that it wasn't made with the intent to be converted to SuperScope, which cropped the image more and enlarged the grain. Nearly all SuperScope films were never intended to be shown that way, as it was an afterthought. Also, the pan & scan example only shows croppng applied to the 2:1 anamorphic prints. If they went back to the negative, it would be open matte.

 

[Jeff Newcomb]

What Patrick said, except I suspect it may have even been intended to show at 1.37. That is how it was shot. The reason that the comparison is on the Criterion discs is that some pan-and-scan versions of the film take the already over-matted SuperScope transfer and pan-and-scan that! I don't recall if the full academy ratio negative has ever been transferred to video, or if it even exists anymore.

 

[Gary Seven]

Interesting.... I googled for this Criterion LD to check your facts and found this...

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/.../t-173203.html

Learn something new every day... especially here.

 

[Chris Tedesco]

So the only reviews I've read state that this is the SAME transfer as the previous, which is not anamorphic. If this is true, I'm a bit shocked.....

Here's a review:

http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/invas...snatchers/5005