IMDb > The Invasion (2007/I) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Invasion
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Invasion More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 10 of 28: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [Next]
Index 280 reviews in total 

Out of all the movies I've watched as of 2016, this is simply the greatest.

Author: metalfistt from United States
31 August 2016

I know this movie came out in '07, but lets be honest; it's absolutely amazing. I mean the action in itself is thrilling, the suspense will leave your heart pounding. It's not at all a 'scary' movie, but it will give you a few jump-scares if you're not prepared. I rate this a 9.2/10, the level of acting that goes into this is absolutely flawless, the lines are well done, and the choice of actors fits perfectly. Not to mention the almost unique plot, the rating IMDb gives this movie is wrong, a 5.9 for this just isn't enough. If you love alien invasions, action, suspense and thriller movies; this film is all you.

Have fun watching and don't go without, you'll be begging for more.

Was the above review useful to you?

A solid first half gives way to a forgettable second

Author: Leofwine_draca from United Kingdom
5 August 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Despite being the third remake of a classic '50s-era B-movie chiller, THE INVASION actually manages to hold its own and wring maximum suspense from the familiar premise – at least until the second half, where it pretty much falls apart. While my favourite of the "body snatchers" films will always be the incredibly claustrophobic and chilling 1978 version starring Donald Sutherland, at least this is a credible attempt at reinterpreting the story and far better than Abel Ferrera's 1993 variant. German director Oliver Hirschbiegel, who made the 'last days of Hitler' thriller DOWNFALL, proves himself a force to be reckoned with in the early scenes here, investing moments with an utter alien eeriness that's just as good as in the Kaufman flick. The plot doesn't hang around, the invasion is underway pretty fast, and there are a ton of creepy/spooky moments to enjoy (the visiting census man is one such highlight).

And then…the studio saw the completed draft of the film and decided there wasn't enough action or things blowing up. The decent, slow-moving, suspenseful scenes were jettisoned and some generic chase stuff brought in, in which Kidman et al attempt to evade capture by driving around in burning cars, driving through things, running down streets, ad nauseum. The second half of the film turns into some bland, seen it all before thriller, and it's so predictable that I felt like screaming. Had the film stayed focused to Hirschbiegel's vision, it could have been a made for the '70s outing, but instead it turns into typical Hollywood tosh.

Still, kudos is still there for the first half. The acting talent, too, isn't half bad. Kidman looks eerie to begin with – some kind of post-production manipulation has happened here to give her skin a flawless, elfin look – and I enjoyed watching her trying not to fall asleep. Craig just plays a nice guy, which makes a later twist more effective. Jeffrey Wright, who plays Felix Leiter in the new Bond movies, is excellent as a sympathetic scientist, and even Veronica Cartwright – who starred in the 1978 version – pops up as a psychiatric patient convinced her husband is a stranger. Until the repetitive action starts, the film's generally devoid of special effects which heightens the stark realism, and I had real hopes that it was going to be something other than a missed opportunity. Studio interference ruins a good film once again.

Was the above review useful to you?

Well intentioned thoughtful failure

Author: karen-821-938620
3 July 2016

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This film tries to rework the whole body snatcher concept to encompass new realities, but doesn't go far enough to get there. It signals so clearly so quickly that the pods won't win and assimilation is reversible that the tension is seriously diffused. At the same time, the pod system offers an alternative to our current political and social disorder; in the background you hear reports of peace in the middle east and reconciliation between the United States and Venezuela. However, instead of playing this theme up for some sort of ambiguity, the pod beings don't get along with dogs. In a choice between world peace and no dogs, what choice is there?

In the originals the trade off is between order and love, while this one introduces some mild indications that the pod beings are still capable of affection and empathy. This theme is handled blandly and is countered by the plot twist that a main character is immune to assimilation. Even worse, Kidman is surrounded by people who are helpful and know what is going on and that network prevails right to the end, eliminating the sense of isolation that is another hallmark of body snatcher movies. It is as though the filmmaker wants to avoid any serious sense of threat or tension. Maybe they were pod people themselves, or the movie is intended to create the experience of being assimilated! I can say for sure it is a vehicle for displaying Nicole Kidman's figure in a series of tasteful rib knit tops, which does provide some interest.

Was the above review useful to you?

Disappointing stuff, honestly

Author: First Name Last Name from Denmark
9 May 2016

The Invasion sounds promising enough and could have been awesome. But this is basically just a bland and dull version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

I will tell you about it casually. The acting is quite good for the most part. Kidman and Craig are excellent as usual. But that pretty much sums up all the positive factors. The negative factors are much more dominant. The characters are a bit stiff and so is the entire setup. The cinematography is good, but the editing is sometimes dreadful. There are some idiotic plot holes and details that made me think a great deal about the level of inconsistency in the movie. Oh yeah, and the whole thing was incredibly boring. There is nothing that makes us remember anything from it. It is just so incredibly dull. For a horror movie it doesn't feature any psychological terror or gore at all: it is, like I said, a trip to Dullsville.

This one deserves a four out of ten. It is not even mediocre, but lazy and pointless. I hated it. But it is not Tommy Wiseau-style either; there is some technical insight behind the craftsmanship. But please stick to the original remake from the seventies!

Was the above review useful to you?

Not much fun even for sci-fi newbies

Author: Deep-Thought from Oklahoma City
6 March 2016

Right at the beginning of "The Invasion," the thought comes that "I've seen this before." A couple of minutes later, the thought comes that "I've seen this before, too." Alas, folks, the plot is a slightly adapted recycling of the 1997 TV miniseries "Invasion" starring Luke Perry with some "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" thrown in, along with a pinch of 1986's "Lifeforce" (a really, really, really bad film) and a dash of "Species II." This film might be entertaining to viewers unfamiliar with the above titles, but even taken on its own terms as a distinct work, it doesn't work. The direction is clumsy, the editing is choppy, the pacing is ponderous, and the filmmakers mostly fail to deliver anything scary or suspenseful.

The two lead actors, Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig (just beginning his career as James Bond), are both gorgeous, but both appear to be pretty much phoning in their performances; the same goes for most of the rest of the cast.

Message to any newcomers to SF reading this review: Your time is better spent seeking out the original "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Yes, it is rather dated, but it's still scarier than this film.

Was the above review useful to you?

A high budget version of a Sy-Fy made for TV movie...

Author: buiger from Monaco
17 October 2015

Half decent thriller, I wasn't bored, so I decided to give it a 6/10 which is probably slightly more than it deserves. Basically, this was just a slightly better, high budget version of a Sy-Fy made for TV movie. The science is bad (or non-existent), there is little (or no) attention to detail, etc... What the movie has going for it however is Nicole Kidman... Even though this is certainly not a role she will be remembered for, she carries the movie almost single handedly. Daniel Craig is basically wasted here, I don't even know what he was paid for in this film, his role is so marginal it makes no sense in my mind to enroll such a star and then do nothing with him... The rest is all average, the music, the cinematography, the script, etc. It will kill an hour and a half of your time decently though, so what the heck!

Was the above review useful to you?

Surprisingly effective retelling of the classic sci-fi thriller

Author: NavyOrion from United States
22 September 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This 2007 sci-fi thriller starring Nicole Kidman is the fourth film version of Jack Finney's novel "The Body Snatchers," the earlier movies being the classic 1956 "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and its 1978 remake of the same name, and 1993's "Body Snatchers." (Actually, it's the fifth one, if you also count "Invasion of the Pod People," a direct-to-video bomb described by one IMDb reviewer as "a flick about an alien ginger plant that turns mean girls into sex-starved, naked lesbians.") But a good story can stand repeated interpretations, and this is no exception.

Although Kidman's acting is in some scenes fairly stiff, and Daniel Craig (fresh off his first turn as James Bond) seems somewhat wasted in his role as her boyfriend, this is a surprisingly effective version, nicely playing up the most important element of the story: the growing apprehension and suspicion that captures the quickly-dwindling number of uninfected people. With almost no sci-fi trappings other than minimal make-up effects, the movie instead emphasizes that psychological angle; the victims are not physically replaced as in the earlier films, but mentally enslaved. (In a small but key role, Veronica Cartwright plays one of the few who are immune, a tip of the hat to the 1978 version in which she also appeared.) A new element is the introduction of a child character, the safety of whom is a key motivator for Kidman, who plays the boy's mother.

While this film does take a slightly different route from its predecessors in replacing the original bean-like "pods" with a virus-like epidemic brought to Earth on a crashing space shuttle, it repeats a key plot point: that "they get you when you're asleep." Since everyone has at some time had the experience of struggling to stay awake, this puts the audience right in the same situation: what if staying awake meant more than seeing the end "The Tonight Show," but was instead a matter of life and death?

I know some reviewers are upset with the producer's decision >>>SPOILER ALERT<<< to have mankind ultimately defeat the alien invasion, but the "twist ending" from the earlier films is already well-known, so little is lost from having the plot of this one essentially tied up in a neat little bow (although I must admit that the climactic "escape" scene that ultimately leads to the victory was a bit lackluster.)

Still, while by no means a science fiction classic, "The Invasion" is an entertaining movie, and well worth seeing at least once.

Was the above review useful to you?

The Weakest Invasion Film.

Author: Python Hyena from Canada
9 September 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The Invasion (2007): Dir: Oliver Hirschbiegel / Cast: Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig, Jeffrey Wright, Jeremy Northam, Jackson Bond: This is easily the worst of the Body Snatchers films with penetration still being the theme but never fully examined here. The 1956 version was groundbreaking and suspenseful with a remake in 1978 that is easily one of the best of remakes with its paranoia theme. This one seems more action oriented than thrilling and even those scenes will put viewers in that sleep state that victims are subdued too. Directing and production are fine but the cast are a complete waste. Nicole Kidman holds her own as a mother struggling to find answers and a solution. Her son apparently is immune to the virus so she requests that he inject her if she happens to drift off asleep. Daniel Craig should fire his agent after going from James Bond to this. His role is merely a potential romantic prop that is beneath his talent. Jeffrey Wright is another worthy talent who makes a wasted appearance. Jeremy Northam plays Kidman's ex-husband who will obviously become infected early. Jackson Bond plays Kidman's son who is about as useless as mowing grass in five feet of snow. The 1956 and 1978 versions are highly recommended thrill rides that work, while this stupid and pointless film invaded by idiocy and a complete lack of intelligence. Score: 3 ½ / 10

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Missed Mark

Author: pc95 from San Diego
10 September 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

(spoilers)"The Invasion" is one of those movies that leaves you disappointed and wondering what could've been. Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel, the movie sets itself up fairly well with a good and well-known premise. We've all seen Body-Snatchers, and here the weirdo aliens are out in a fully clichéd manner. There's little originality, but the production and editing is solid. Even though it's not new, the scenes are well acted and there is established tension. The movie loses it towards the end though, it completely blows off the ending with what, a ho-hum car chase?! Again quite disappointing. Up until the final 10 min or so, the movie was decent Seems like something got chopped off on the editing box. 6/10 So-so.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Nothing particularly new

Author: SnoopyStyle
8 January 2014

This is yet another adaptation of The Body Snatchers. The space shuttle explodes and crashes bringing an alien virus. It spreads quickly throughout the world. Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman) is a psychiatrist who has a patient (Veronica Cartwright) who is claiming to find troubling signs in her husband. Carol brings something strange to her doctor boyfriend Ben Driscoll (Daniel Craig). Eventually they discover that the virus is changing people as they sleep.

When there is a great idea, people will hammer it into oblivion. Bringing Veronica Cartwright on is an obvious ploy to hearken back to past glory. Is there anything new here? No. There are a few interesting scenes. I really like the subway scene. But there is nothing here to justify a whole new movie. They have reduced the concept to a simple mother and son story. That is the real takeaway.

The subway is probably the highest point of the movie. After that point, the movie gets too unrealistic. More than that, it becomes unimportant. Her only goal is to rescue her boy. It's a noble goal. But it's a relatively small goal considering that the world is collapsing. The movie scale kept growing, but the goal kept getting smaller.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 10 of 28: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history