UHD Review A Few Words About A few words about...™ - Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) -- in 4k UHD (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

Especially for films made in this era, pre-home video, pre-cable, the expectation was that your audience would see it once, and most people don’t notice that kind of thing in a single viewing.

 

[Dick]

I'm pretty happy with this release, but for the fact that many shots are somewhat soft (having to do with lap dissolves?). Am keeping the Olive Signature because it contains unique programming. I can't imagine getting a better release of this film on physical media (or streaming or anything else).

 

[Dick]

There have been so many films that have certain sequences in which they don't make sense plot-wise, but the director doesn't care about that because his first task is to entertain the audience. That particular scene was so devastating and iconic that most people will soon forget how was Becky transformed? Hitchcock was known to have such moments in his films because his goal was to entertain people and not worry whether logic or plot made sense to people.

Becky could have been transformed from the emerging pod duplicate of her in the greenhouse, which no one had the heart to stab with the pitchfork. But can that happen remotely? In the 1978 remake, the pods are physically very close to those they are duplicating...near enough so their tendrils could enter the bodies of the people they are murdering. Perhaps in 1956, the pods could do this from afar by simple osmosis.

 

[Nelson Au]

It's also possible that they had more elaborate plans for the climax of the story, but the production ran out of money and time, and they were forced to switch lanes at the last minute into the "Becky just magically turns into an alien" route instead.

To be fair, the actual moment where it happens and Miles realizes that Becky isn't Becky is brilliantly realized for what it is, with a superb combination of performances, directing, and editing. It's shocking and heartbreaking at the same time.

There have been so many films that have certain sequences in which they don't make sense plot-wise, but the director doesn't care about that because his first task is to entertain the audience. That particular scene was so devastating and iconic that most people will soon forget how was Becky transformed? Hitchcock was known to have such moments in his films because his goal was to entertain people and not worry whether logic or plot made sense to people.

I think you guys are right. It was definitely a more dramatic and terrifying sequence when you first see Becky’s emotionless eyes and then Miles’ shock and fear. That was very effective.

I haven‘t listened to the Joe Dante moderated audio commentary with Kevin McCarthy and Dana Wynter in a long time, I doubt they commented on that part. I must listen to it to hear what they say.

 

[JoshZ]

I'm a little late in getting this disc reviewed, but FWIW I posted some screenshots with a slide-over comparison of the two aspect ratios confirming that the 2.00:1 Superscope version has a smidge more picture on both the left and right sides, in addition to losing a bunch off the top and bottom. I don't see any evidence of geometrical stretching or distortion. The Superscope version is also slightly darker.

To me, all signs point to both versions being derived from separate film elements, and not, as had been suggested previously, that the 1.85:1 was somehow derived by vertically stretching the 2.00:1.

 

[RolandL]

I'm a little late in getting this disc reviewed, but FWIW I posted some screenshots with a slide-over comparison of the two aspect ratios confirming that the 2.00:1 Superscope version has a smidge more picture on both the left and right sides, in addition to losing a bunch off the top and bottom. I don't see any evidence of geometrical stretching or distortion. The Superscope version is also slightly darker.

To me, all signs point to both versions being derived from separate film elements, and not, as had been suggested previously, that the 1.85:1 was somehow derived by vertically stretching the 2.00:1.

Yes, see post #144 also for the differences.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yes, see post #184 also for the differences.

There is no post #184 in this thread.

 

[Nelson Au]

There is no post #184 in this thread.

I thought maybe Roland flipped the numbers and it was post 148. But that post didn’t look like it. Maybe 138?

 

[RolandL]

There is no post #184 in this thread.

Sorry, should be #144.

 

[JoshZ]

Sorry, should be #144.

Yes, that post shows the sliver of extra picture on the sides of the Superscope 2.00:1. Nevertheless, there had been some talk in the thread about the 1.85:1 possibly also being vertically stretched. I don't see any sign of that. Easiest to see in a full screenshot with human faces in proper proportion.