The Invasion (2007) Poster

(I) (2007)

User Reviews

Review this title
282 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Not bad... just not award worthy.
steeped21 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't know much about Invasion before I walked into this movie. I heard the bad reviews from critics but hell, who listens to them? While watching this movie, I wasn't aware that The Invasion was re-filmed and rewritten. Apparently they rewrote it to add the twist in the end, as well as they added more action sequences with faster and better-angled camera work.

So the movie starts off right away with Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman) scattering around the medicine cabinet in a Pharmacy whispering "stay awake, don't fall asleep" to herself. The neat fast-paced camera work kept you right into the movie from the beginning, but sadly the amazing beginning just doesn't match up to the pathetic ending. It seemed like they got tired of writing the movie so they decided to end it off with a simply and quick ending.

Some organism from a different planet crashed down to Earth and took over the citizens of the world. When the organism comes in contact with a human, they will become a different alien-ish like being obsessed with capturing people and affecting the world with their plague. When each person was affected, they would turn into these emotionless, mindless and painless zombies while they sleep. In search of her son, Carol Bennell gets affected and must stay awake so she would be able to save her boy. With help from Ben Driscoll (Daniel Craig) and his team of doctors, they go on the search for a cure, to save humanity and especially, save Carol.

I find that this movie gave off the message it was trying to, but in the process it failed at almost everything else. I was expecting, before walking into this movie that it would be filled with suspense with my heart jumping ever so often... but I wasn't scared or thrilled once. The suspense scenes had great music playing, had the great camera angles, but was just missing the spice to make it really work. And in regards to the end of the movie... I can promise you the writers got tired of having to rewrite a story and just through in a quick, painless ending. Course the quick painless ending resulted in annoyance for the audience.

While I walked out of the theater, I was thinking about this movie and how I would interpret it. One thing came to my head, and it was that the new directors did what they were supposed to - make me think and remember this movie once I leave the theater. This was NOT a forgettable movie, rather quite memorable. Sure there was a bad ending, but my eyes were attached to the screen throughout the whole film. I didn't look at my watch once, and for me that gives this movie a big bonus.
82 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
What are people talking about!?
emiliovillegas26 May 2012
This is such an underrated title! I loved the movie since the beginning. I would compare to 28 days later. It was just luck that I found this one as there is no propaganda of the movie. No one I know had heard of this movie but man, what a movie! I love the actors , I love the acting , everything! There is some darkness in the movie and there where some scenes that did scare me. Don't you like it when movies can induce different emotions in you? The idea that this series of events could actually happen in real life made the movie more appealing to me. We had something similar when the virus H1N1 came. The movie takes you right back to those moments of suspense. If you like those feelings don't let this movie unwatched!
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Invasion of the Script Snatchers
Brent Trafton19 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
"The Invasion" had a lot going for it. It had two big stars, an acclaimed director, a big time producer, and a time tested premise. The only thing missing was a script.

"The Invasion" does not follow the same story as the earlier movies. They took the premise and made a new story. The new story has only a threadbare plot, no character development, and some of the most banal dialog I have heard in recent years. At 93 minutes, there are long passages that go nowhere and do nothing for the story.

Whoever gave the green light to this production without having a decent script first should be fired.

Despite that, there are some parts that are watchable. It is just frustrating that they could not have come up with a better story and better characters.
160 out of 229 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Not Bad..Nicole lookin good!
rdambroso24 August 2007
We went to see this last night. After all of the horrific reviews, I was expecting a real P.O.S. I was pleasantly surprised. While not to say it was an AWESOME movie or anything. It was good Sci Fi fun. I get irritated when a lot of movie buffs are looking for every film to be a Gone with the Wind or something. This was just a fun, smooth, entertaining production. I've never been a real fan of Nicole kidman, but I must say, she was quite fetching in this movie. If you are looking for the 50's version of War of the Worlds..The forbidden planet..John Carpenter's the THING...etc..it doesn't qualify. If you are looking for a fun Sci Fi Thriller to watch, it does the job.
114 out of 169 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
At turns mind-numbingly obvious and clichéd
tsunetomo165917 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I actually went into this movie with pretty high expectations, considering that the Wachowski brothers were involved and it seemed like an interesting premise from the trailers. Well, as it turned out, somehow all of that potential was utterly wasted. From beginning to end this movie is boring, predictable, and terribly clichéd. I kept hoping until the end that at some point it would get better, but bit for bit everything in this movie is the epitome of all that is trite and stale in sci-fi movies and little to nothing of what is interesting and original.

Every crummy sci-fi/horror movie starts out with little hints of whatever fantastic thing is supposed to happen later, and so did The Invasion. Except, in The Invasion this whole section keeps pointing out things to the audience that were mind-numbingly obvious. "My husband is not my husband anymore..." Oh really? Well surely she's just some nut-case and it has nothing to do with the storyline that's been explained on TV commercials and in movie trailers for the past several months! I honestly don't understand why filmmakers like these frequently feel the need to spend half of the movie beating the audience over the head with information that they could (and probably already did) find in a one sentence synopsis of the film.

Per the typical, trite sci-fi/horror movie formula there's also a scene where the main character brings a same of something weird to a scientist and he examines it and conveniently explains everything that the audience needs to know about the substance/disease/alien race in a straightforward, uninteresting way. There are so many scenes like this where the characters are supposed to be revealing something new and interesting but it just comes out as if the writers think that the audience is a a bunch of slobbering morons who can't take a simple hint.

Here's one detail that particularly struck me for its idiocy: about a third of the way through the movie, there's a scene where the Russian guy (who cares what his name is) basically explains (through a convenient monologue) the thesis of the movie which goes something like, "a world without newspapers constantly talking about violence and hatred is a world without humanity." Later on, there are some segments showing on a TV that say that fighting has ended in Iraq and then Daniel Craig's character gives another speech that is very obviously supposed to be a counterpoint to the first one that goes something like, "in our world, there is no need to hurt one another." At the end, after the aliens are nearly destroyed Daniel Craig talks about how 87 people just died in Iraq. As if ALL this information wasn't enough to make you draw some sort of a connection, they just have to drill it directly into your skull by replaying the Russian guy's quote again. I could mention plenty more things like this, but I'm starting to get annoyed.
65 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Taunt and Smart, Kidman shines here.
wji22231 August 2007
First of all, this is not a scary movie. Instead, there is an atmosphere of tenseness, especially when Kidman and Craig's characters must pretend to have already changed in order to survive. Kidman easily carries this film, and she makes you believe the plot line that another actress would have easily made ludicrous. I have read some critical reviews questioning the casting of Kidman in this role, mostly due to the fact that her icy demeanor is seemingly miscast in a role that calls for emotion. However, I believe that it is this very demeanor that allows her to be believable in this film. She plays an extremely smart psychologist who catches on to the situation fast. She is an analyzer, and it is her lack of deep emotion that allows for her to think quickly and critically, without it, she would have easily succumbed to the body snatchers and there would have been no movie. There is indeed a liberal undercurrent through this movie. It questions our role in Iraq but more importantly, it questions our actions as a species, our emotions, our anger, our selfishness, and their effects on our society. To create a world in which everyone is equal, rational, no war, no disease, no famine, no inequality is what the body snatchers are offering...and for this movie goer, there was at least one point in the film in which I found myself asking whether that would be so bad. Sure, the ending was a little too quick and tidy, but overall, this was a great movie.
122 out of 194 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Blame it on the Hollywood suits
emgasulla13 December 2007
I honestly don't think the movie is worth an 8, not in its released form. But since the cuts and additions from the suits are so painfully obvious, I'm willing to give a higher rating to the movie that could have been... and for now, only the original director Oliver something has seen.

So the original movie (which is still discernible somehow) was supposed to be a dark, slow take on isolation, pill overuse and boring modern life. With a twist: a mom so desperate to protect her child, she would silently watch other people being killed as long as she can find her kid. That's actually moving and seldom seen in a macho-dominated Hollywood. I won't say that ice cold Kidman is the right choice to depict a desperate mom, but given that her role is to often look emotionless (so she can pass as another "pod people") she doesn't do too badly.

Now, the suits didn't like that and called those soft-brained Wachowski bros to make it -supposedly- more mainstream. And what they did was to add car chases, crashes, helicopters, fires and senseless violence in general. Inserted into the original movie at close intervals to keep people amused (or so they thought). Now, there are a few good directors who can pull out a combination of slow burn and crazy action. But a patchwork movie made of two different directors' bits, guys with widely opposed instincts and goals, no wonder the result is a flop.

If anything is to be learned from this, it's how little do Hollywood executives know about what makes a good movie. Granted, a non-stop mishmash of violence and fifth-drink bar philosophy like The Matrix can earn the big bucks, but you can't expect Matrix-like bits to improve what was intended to be a slow paced, moody film. Which was probably condemned to be a box office failure, but also could have been pretty good.
142 out of 228 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not Perfect But Still Very Entertaining
robyram25 August 2007
I admit that I was hesitant about seeing "The Invasion" after reading some poor reviews and coming to this message board. I also was leery after learning that part of it was re-shot by different directors which is usually a very bad sign. Plus the fact that they give Kidman a kid in this film had me leery for I often grow weary of female leads in suspense/action/horror films having to protect children instead of other adults like male leads do especially if the kids are annoying.

So, I almost didn't see "The Invasion" after reading and hearing all of the complaints about no plot, no real character development, bad acting and poor directing/editing.

Yet, I finally agreed to just go with my gut and take a chance on a matinée show of "The Invasion." Boy, am I glad that I did, not only because I did not have to pay the outrageous full price of ten bucks but I actually liked this film.

Despite what some are saying this film does have a plot. People are actually doing things that lead to other plot points like the whole deal with Veronica Cartwright's character and Kidman's character leaving her son with the ex-husband. These two story lines lead to important discoveries and actions that happen later on in the film.

Also, there is character development. Kidman's character does develop because she's forced to change in order to survive and to protect herself and her son. The warm relationship between Kidman's character and her son and Ben also is established.

So beyond these relationships do we really need to dwell on the other characters for too long? After all this is a plot driven movie not a character driven movie. Besides, if they had taken time to thoroughly get into everyone else's back story people would be whining about the movie being too long. But I digress.

Also, I thought that all of the actors did a good job especially Kidman. She showed good range from being a caring psychiatrist, to a loving mother to a terrified woman to a desperate mother who would do anything to protect her child. I also like the mood and tone of this film. Granted the Pod People in the 1956 and 1978 versions were a tad bit creepier but I liked this film better than the 1978 version overall and I didn't miss that crazy scream. However, the 1956 version is definitely a classic.

Sure "The Invasion" is not perfect and it has it flaws and I feel that the studio probably should have left the original version alone. After all, the majority of the film is stronger than the last half which is obviously where the re-shoots took place. Still despite the unnecessary out of order time cuts, and a tad too many car crashes, the film still worked for me. I was definitely entertained.

Now that's saying a lot especially since I went in with low expectations.
33 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Travesty
herrnoel19 August 2007
The 70s remake of this film succeeded because it was a chilling psychological thriller with little to no horror film elements and a biting ending that lingered with you for days.

This film starts out with the premise and setup, but quickly deviates into a different film -- a rehashing of 28 days later and outbreak with illogical, formulaic action sequences that are literally lifted straight from any zombie film. As usual with sub-par screenplays, the plot requires illogical and implausible events to move forward and provide thrills. In the end, it couldn't make up its mind whether it was an intellectually compelling, psychological thriller or yet another zombie action film? The ending was ... eh I don't even want to explain it.
142 out of 251 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
I Kept an Open Mind
Kashmirgrey24 August 2007
You hafta' go into every movie with an open mind if you're going to give it a fair assessment, right? Well, I did exactly that with "The Invasion". Despite all the heavy and (quite) ugly criticism this movie received, it had a fair cast and it isn't too often that Nicole Kidman is in something completely awful. Let it be known, as well, that I am a big fan of both the original and the 1978 versions of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". It is reasonable to speculate that fans of either of those two films will be disappointed with this latest stab at the "body snatcher" storyline.

However, I asked myself, is the point to compare this film against its predecessors or should I evaluate this film on its own merits alone? I decided the latter was the right course and with this in mind, I watched "The Invasion".

The film opens with a very frantic Carol Bennell (played by Nicole Kidman) rummaging through the shelves of a pharmacy. She is searching for sleep suppressants. We are then taken back in a recent past where a space shuttle crash lands into the countryside. The shuttle's wreckage has brought back something with it. From the moment that Bennell's ex-husband (played Jeremy Northam) pricks his fingers on a foreign organism, life becomes a serious drag for the (evidently, terrible) human species. Bennell, who is a psychiatrist, doesn't get it at first when one of her patients (played by Veronica Cartwright who also starred in the 1978 "Invasion of the Body Snatchers) irately claims her husband isn't her husband. But it doesn't take long before Bennell figured out that all is not right in Everytown, USA.

This film was not awful. This was, by no means, the worst of the "snatchers" make-overs. 1993's "Body Snatchers" is my nominee for that award. There were some moments in this film that worked well such as a brief, but tense scene when Bennell and her son (played by Jackson Bond) are unsure whether the other is... them. I also liked the "attempt" at a different approach to the body snatching "method". All in all, for me what kept me watching was Kidman. No, not just because she's a super-hottie (although it never hurts.) She adeptly became Bennell and breathed life into her character. I actually thought this was one of her better performances.

This could have been an excellent film, but as is all too often the case these days, character development was not a priority. Beyond Kidman as Bennell, character development was non-existent. How people are being snatched, also, is never adequately, not even remotely, explained. Wherein the other snatcher films, while the victim sleeps their body rotted away and their alien replacement is created within a giant pea-pod, in "The Invasion" the process is never identified. This makes for a very weak ending. Truly, with today's SFX, this could have been an extraordinary "revelation". What was most disappointing was the attempt at social and political commentary. Good grief! I cannot think of a more articulate adjective then just plain...lame.
54 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Half of this movie on cutting room floor
oregoncycle25 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I for one would have liked to see the directors cut. After watching this movie the first thing I said to my friends was that this movie has been cut and re-cut. Now after reading that the producers brought in another director then re-wrote & re-shot chunks of this movies you understand the disjointed feel of this movie. There is a flow that happens on the set of movies that gels most movies together. So often good actors pull a poor script up and we get a fairly good movie as a result. This movie before cutting was worse then this final cut? hard to believe.

I will watch this if and when they have a directors cut on DVD. And the spoiler is weak ending ala 'war of the worlds'
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If your a fan of any other iteration you will hate this.
manakin3317 August 2007
Hollywood destroyed everything good about this film.

There was a resounding creepiness that looms over the body snatcher remakes and the original. This film misses that on every mark. No pods... No siren screams... And the ending, well, is a slap in the face to the concept.

If your not a fan or have never seen any other versions you might think it is OK. But thats it, just OK. They screwed up one of the scariest concepts ever thought up. Permormences were OK. It had one or two bright points but overall it was crap.

Take the cgi out of war of the worlds and you have invasion... thats not a good thing.
132 out of 238 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Do not Sleep!
Claudio Carvalho2 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
While returning to Earth, the space-bus explodes and the fragments bring an alien virus that recodes the human DNA. In Washington, the psychiatrist Carol Bennell (Nicole Kidman) observes the modification of the behavior of one of her clients first, then in her former husband and finally in the population in general. Together with her friend Dr. Ben Driscoll (Daniel Craig) and the researcher Dr. Stephen Galeano (Jeffrey Wright), they discover that the extraterrestrial epidemic affects human beings while sleeping and that her son Ollie, who had smallpox with Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) when he was a baby, is immune to the disease and may save mankind from the outbreak.

Don Siegel's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" is one of the best sci-fi ever, therefore most of the remakes are good because the story of earth being invaded through replicas of the human beings is excellent. "The Invasion" is maybe the third remake of the classic that I have watched and I liked it in spite of having an optimistic and corny conclusion. I do not dare to compare the classic movie of Don Siegel with this remake, but I have found it very reasonable and entertaining. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Invasores" ("Invaders")
42 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Don't even bother to find fault with it
Harry T. Yung17 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I don't always listen to film critics but when three reasonably reliable ones all give this movie a 2/4, I should take heed. Why did I watch it then? I am a Nicole Kidman fan. Sure enough, Kidman was in every scene, if not every frame. But that was about it.

I won't even bother finding fault with this movie because it is so formulaic that it gives you everything you expect, which isn't much. If you watch close to 200 movies a year (granted not all of them Hollywood), you have seen them all – divorced professional mother with young (ten-ish) son and good-guy boyfriend, mass hysteria in which you just don't know which one is a sinister "them", just to name the two key elements. There is really nothing seriously wrong about this movie – that a woman and her son have become the only people among thousands in the city that are unaffected is something that Hollywood expects you to accept without as much as a blink. Nor is the split-personality change (of the movie, I mean) from a dark, sinister suspense into a chaotic havoc of wild chases anything that you should really criticize because you've got to have these things in the movie. By the way, this movie is a sort of a partial remake of "Invasion of the body snatches", if you don't already know and whether it's the fourth or the fifth depends on who you talk to.

Yes, there are some good, damned good actors in the caliber of Daniel Craig, Jeremy Northam and Jeffrey Wright but in this movie they may as well be props. A terrible waste, you say, but these people got to have a paycheck every now and then too. So in the end, there's just Kidman. This isn't exactly her bid for another Oscar, but she does a fine job here, limited scope notwithstanding.
22 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Worse than you might think, considering the talent.
Matthew (SinsOfArcadia)20 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
The Invasion | 3/10

We are all finally greeted with the 49th remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and yes, it's every bit as unnecessary as you might think. Considering the talent involved in this project, however, I'm actually a bit disturbed at how bad it turned out. Oliver Hirschbiegel directed the outstanding WWII film "Downfall" a few years ago, and Nicole Kidman is among Hollywood's greatest actresses of this or any other era. Baffled by how terrible the film turned out to be, I did some research. Apparently the producers of the film weren't happy with Hirschbiegel's vision, so they went ahead and had a completely different director (James McTeigue, director of V for Vendetta) re-shoot entire scenes. This was clearly a terrible idea, but probably not the only reason for it's failure.

The plot presented here, as thin as it is to begin with, basically goes nowhere at all. Kidman's character contracts the 'virus' from her ex-husband in an attempt to take her child from him to a treatment center of sorts. What's worse is that nothing of even remote interest happens before this, and we're not exactly treated to edge of your seat suspense afterwards, either. Kidman spends the rest of the film in search of this so-called treatment center while finding out along the way that her son is somehow immune to the virus. The virus, for the sake of information, can only fully convert you after you enter REM sleep. It's alien nature and motive are barely touched upon at all. There is of course the obligatory sub plot of lovers, unconvincingly played out between Kidman and Craig, that are best friends but really think it's best if they stayed that way even though they clearly want to be with each other. You know, the usual Lifetime network effect. We're also given a handful of mediocre to terrible supporting characters that are each given their share of awful dialogue to delight us with.

I suppose it's not among the worst films I've ever seen, but it is without a doubt a miserable one. There are a few solid scenes with Kidman that quite literally save this from being a complete and utter waste of 93 minutes, but even those are few and far between. On the whole the film fails at literally every genre it attempts or presents, from Sci-Fi to Action and, worst of all, Horror. This is the least horrifying Horror film I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. I hope for the sake of film that this talented director chooses to build on the promise he showed in Downfall by putting this embarrassment as far behind him as possible. To his credit, though, I would have to assume that whatever Hirschbiegel originally filmed was at least a few steps above the final product that was somehow unleashed upon the viewer.
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
This "Invasion" Needs to Be Conquered 0*
edwagreen15 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Who wrote this junk?

Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig star in this mysterious trash dealing with a virus that comes to earth and causes people to be almost monster-like. They become like zombies and then resort to violence to get others to join them.

At first there is a nuclear disaster which brings about the epidemic.

You come down with the disease by falling asleep and it manifests itself during the rem dreaming period. I would suggest that you risk the virus and fall asleep on this miserable film. The writing is a complete joke.

New York is quarantined and Kidman's son and ex-husband run to Baltimore to stay with his mother. The latter looks just like the type you would meet in Borough Park, Brooklyn.

Of course, Kidman is in pursuit and she naturally gets into a pharmacy and has a serum from keeping her from sleeping. What hogwash.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
you'll understand why it spent one year on a shelf......
wildpeace1019 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
i'm a big fan of those invasion of the body snatchers film and also of nicole kidman so i was excited to hear that a remake was being done.

But in trying to put new blood in the new version,they took out so many things that made the 1978 version so thrilling.

No pods,no transformation while a human is sleeping, no nudity and no powerful alien screams.

Not only that,but very few surprises and not a lot of tense suspense either. i was feeling such a low level of emotions watching this... as if i was one of the film's zombies myself!!!

This is probably the most expensive remake of the series and yet,most of the special effects are either nowhere to be found or low budget. The newest thing here is that the zombies sometimes kind of spit/vomit on their victims,a new thing that i just couldn't appreciate!

The best new variation here is the addition of a story plot stating the fact that her kid couldn't be contaminated and therefore has to be eliminated.

This then gaves a very powerful motivation to escape,a motivation that anybody can understand.

The additional scenes involving what seems to be a two part car chase(one with fire on the car and one without)is just too little, too late to turn this average film into a must see film.
17 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
One To Enjoy With An Open Mind
eric26200318 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
.Having seen the 1978 remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" I really enjoyed the movie immensely. It was involving and very gritty and surely gave me nightmares for the next five days (that's how effective that movie was and still is to this day). When I walked into the premiere of this 2007 remake, "The Invasion" I pretended that I wasn't just walking into another adaptation, I walked in with a clean slate and open mind with the intentions of viewing some virus injecting excitement and I couldn't be satisfied more.

Some of my friends dismissed "The Invasion" as an overrated zombie movie and to me that is the misnomer of all misnomers. This movie doesn't even come close to a typical zombie movie. We get people talking like they're in a daze, the perpetual stoic expressions and completely void of events that's happened before them. Never once do they make the effort to eat one's brains and are oblivious at first to who is or who isn't brainwashed. However, their unorthodox walking patterns is quite noteworthy and that they can survive without depending on nourishment and how they walk around with stoic on their faces just to infect victims who haven't been infected gives them that zombie thing going for them. In some ways these zombie-like beings are quite reminiscent to the zombies in Stephen King's novel "Cell: A Novel".

Okay I'll be honest with you, the story seems a bit jilted at first. A UFO crashes on Earth and from the get-go, we already know that trouble is not too far behind and not just from a guy manifesting into a gooey substance in his bed. As the film progresses, we begin to notice that people were starting act anything but human-like. They have weird grins on their faces, have a creepy friendly demeanour in their personalities and they barf in your coffee. At first people get the feeling that a global epidemic is on the horizons, only to realize that something far more evil is lurking around than one might expect.

The horror factor is that some alien bacterial infection is running rapidly on the world's population and nobody around knows where it's coming from. The infection moves from one individual to another almost identical to "28 Weeks Later" where they target their victims using bodily fluids which then the victims end up with a change in attitude which makes them very passive, aloof and their only initiative is to pass their fluids off to other unexpected victims and annihilate the immune. But what separates "The Invasion" from the other virus infected movies is that in most of them, war and utter chaos erupts and victims and non-victims are not safe from those catastrophes. In "The Invasion" it seems that war and anarchy has stopped in its tracks. The Americans have stopped fighting with the Iraqis, Israel and Palestine are now living in harmony and President Bush has a talk with late President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. It seems that thanks to this virus, the world can finally live as one.

With that in mind, this movie proves that this is anything but a brainless virus movie as we ask ourselves, should this manifestation be stopped or is this the poison from God to keep us from our aggression towards one another? Should we look for antidotes to bring us back to reality or should we just take it as it is? These are the little food for thought when watching this movie, but from the look at those who were effected you should be lucky you didn't become one of them. And sure it looks good to live in a peaceful serene setting of Earth, but in the end you realize that we're better off as violent tyrannical humans than peaceful, soulless individuals.

The only flaw to "The Invasion" was that ending was too rushed and unexpected. Sure they had a good thing going for it, but they needed to further uplift the conclusion a little better. I mean it had a lot of good things going for it and before you know it, it just stops without a word of warning. But overall, I would have to say that "The Invasion" was quite intriguing. If you like horror movies you should check out "The Invasion" I think you'll have a ball with this movie.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Save yourself it's too late for me. I've already seen it.
lueschow24 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
OK, perhaps that's excessively harsh but this was a terrible movie. The brief special effects didn't improve this over the 1978 version and even good acting by Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig couldn't take an inane screenplay, poor cinematography, and even poorer directing and make it good.

The Screenplay author was LAZY!! He wanted to do as little as possible to deliver his story and so there are plot holes that you could drive a truck through.

The special effects were Cheezy. OOOOh I'm really scared when I find a disgusting prop. The little bit of CGI didn't make up for the 90 minutes.

See the 1978 version or the 1950s version but steer clear of this dog!!!
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Better than I thought, tension but not terror
spoiler-314 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I should start this off by saying I saw the 1978 Invasion of the Body Snatchers when I was seven years old. I think I still have nightmares of the final scene. That said, this 2007 remake (the Invasion) has some moments of edge of your seat tension, along with a few screams by a raucous preview crowd.

I think Nicole Kidman does a good job as Carol Bennell, a professional, single mom whose world revolves around her son Oliver and her job as a psychiatrist. The movie starts with a quick snap-shot of Carol desperately trying to take meds and caffeine to stay awake. I didn't think that scene was necessary, as all the previews and tag-lines have stressed the "do Not Fall Asleep" theme.

The alien invasion comes by way of another tragic Shuttle incident. This is a necessary plot point but is hardly expanded upon.

For most of the movie the turned human-aliens pursue Carol as she desperately tries to get to her son. It seems almost matter of fact that while what seems like 99% of the city's population is after her, she stays pretty calm. I won't state much else about the plot details only to say that it seemed to me that for a good portion of the movie, all you see are human chase scenes... lots of running and car chases. Nothing really scary about any of them.

I had fore-warned my wife that given my experience with the 1978 Sutherland/Goldblum movie that she would be terrified. That was not the case at all, she actually liked the tense scenes and enjoyed the movie as a whole, but scared she was not. I liked the movie and have purposely left out any references to politics or commentaries on the current state of the world. I thought some of those scenes were crow-barred into the film.

Just my 2 cents.
17 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Another Remake Gone Bad........
patrickmmc29 January 2008
I won't go into details telling about this film. Simply this is just another remake gone bad. For those who wish to be thrilled and scared, see the 1978 film "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." It scared the crap out of me when I was young. I never forgot it either. Unfortunately, this film will be forgotten as quickly as it was thrown together and released.

It's amazing how a film over 20 years old could be better than this pile of steaming #$@#*. But the fact is that the further we move along in technology, the worse the films seem to get. All imagination and creativity seem to have been lost. I am probably the worst critic of them all. I haven't seen much of anything in new millennium releases that I would call outstanding or even good. This film is no different, and I suggest that anyone having been born early enough to remember the original or even 78's version, don't waste your time on this pathetic attempt. It's just a sad, lackluster, unimaginative pop-corn affair.
22 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Don't waste your time, get a Nicole Kidman poster.
arikdr22 December 2007
Its another alien invasion movie, and its a bad one. How many times can we see re-makes of "Invasion of the body snatchers"?!? We had the original in 1953, and a re-make 25 years later, in 1978. now 29 years later - they make another one. I guess we should prepare for another one in 2030... 97% of the movie describes the invasion, though the idea is quite well understood after 10 minutes. - then the whole problem is solved at the last 3 minutes like with a magic wand, and with minimal "heroic" action. True - it does have a more modern feel than the old ones, but its the same lame and chewed-up idea all over again, and badly done. Don't waste your time. Don't even waste time downloading it. It's that bad. get a Nicole Kidman poster instead.
47 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Garbage
davidonvacation21 August 2007
All other version of this movie are superior. Even the '93 version which was garbage as well... NO suspense.No explanation. Blue filter lighting. Plodding pace. Good actors in a flaccid script. Space shuttle brought back a virus. (not a spoiler because this is revealed in the trailer and occurs in the first 2 minutes of the movie)

What made all the other versions interesting was the interpretative possibilities. Comparisons to communism, hippies, Aids etc...

This one is bland. Doesn't comment on anything. A complete waste...

The director of a decent movie Das Experiment goes on autopilot for the money. Editing is nonsense and the script is but a connect the dots children's narrative.

Best viewed at double speed while doing something meaningful, if at all!
38 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
The Fourth is the Worst
Coventry24 May 2009
This is already the fourth large-scaled film version based on Jack Finney's legendary story "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and I must say this is just one too many. The two oldest films (the 50's film directed by Don Siegel and the 70's version by Philip Kaufman) are righteously regarded at as genre milestones, but the "newer" films don't manage to convey the creepy basic premise in a good old-fashioned and atmospheric way. Abel Ferrara's 1993 film "Body Snatchers" still contained a few very effective moments of fright, but this latest; big-names-involved version became somewhat of a disappointment. It's is clearly noticeable that director Oliver Hirschbiegel ("Downfall", "The Experiment") wanted to make his English language debut like a genuine throwback to paranoid & claustrophobic 50's Sci-Fi, with enthralling suspense, mysteriousness and character development. Unfortunately, however, the producers wanted more spectacle and explosions, and thus hired other people for re-writes and re-shoots. The finished product evidently suffers from this, so my advice would be to try and focus as much as possible on the substantially terrific sequences and the creepily-themed ambiance. The familiar concept is still, according to me at least, the archetype of superior Science Fiction. What if some sort of extraterrestrial force caused people to metamorphose into soulless, emotionless and insensitive replicas of themselves overnight? For some reason, I always found this the most nightmarishly plausible Sci-Fi formula, and apparently many genre fanatics with me. This time, the "epidemic" is generated when a US Space Shuttle, containing the unidentified alien substance, crashes down on earth. Shortly after, the entire population is gradually getting replaced by exact copies. Psychiatrist Carol Bennell desperately tries to get to her son, who's staying with his estranged father and happened to be one of the first victims of the infection. Apart from a couple of really powerful sequences and a few isolated moments of pure shock (the tunnel-accident, for example), "The Invasion" is a rather redundant movie that adds absolutely nothing to the original masterpieces. The alien menace isn't very detectable here and the fear in the eyes of the survivors is never fully convincing. The additions to the original storyline, like for example the sub plot on immunity, are inefficient and not compelling. Nicole Kidman, of whom I'm usually not a big fan, is quite good looking in this film and her performance is more than adequate. Her male co-stars Daniel Craig, Jeremy Northam and Jeffrey Wright all give away much more intense and plausible performances, however. I hope that, one day, perhaps Hirschbiegel director's cut will be available and we get to see the film as it was initially intended: slow-brooding, uncanny and petrifying.
15 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Too many cooks
Chris Knipp20 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This updating of Jack Finney's 'Body Snatchers' story, directed (according to the credits anyway) by Oliver Hirschbiegel of the gripping last-days-of-Hitler film 'The Downfall,' clumsily interweaves a low-keyed mood piece with some loud mayhem--noisy car chases and a helicopter rescue in which Nicole Kidman proves to be a mean racing driver. She also on several occasions kills some people in cold blood--rare moments of fun for an audience starved for a little violence relevant to the original plot. There isn't a lot else happening on screen, despite the fact that masses of Americans are being "turned" by an alien virus into soberly dressed, tidy zombies whose aim is to create a more orderly, peaceful world. The irony--though clearly underdeveloped--is that this positive transformation isn't what people want. "They," the infected ones, are trapping people, infecting them, and taking away their personalities. They sneeze on them and the virus takes effect during their REM sleep. There's a new twist somewhere here about how visions of a better world get compromised in the execution, but it gets lost in the botched result.

There are no monsters or gooey ectoplasm, just little sheaths of clear tissue and some people whose faces glaze over--all of which, from the horror-action-movie standpoint, comes off as pretty tame. And the creepy psychological elements--and the ideas about various social and political issue--aren't allowed to develop fully either.

This new scaling down of the old story appears to have all the earmarks of a low budget piece except a low budget. With big crowd scenes and the likes of Craig and Kidman signed on, it must have cost a few bucks. Actually, Craig did this before he got the 007 franchise, which explains a lot. In any case the technical package reads as mediocre. Lacking is the spectacular excitement of the 'Alien' movies or earlier 'Body Snatchers' ones---or the military ironies and fast action of the recent '28 Weeks Later,' which like this (which is set in DC), is full of political references. But in the case of '28 Weeks' the political satire is integrated into the action in ways that are far more cinematic and satirically effective. What went wrong here?

Apparently what happened to 'The Invasion' was too many surgeries by opposing doctors. Hirschbiegel originally had a low-keyed horror movie going on; we feel its chilling menace in the early sequences. Then, because of some poor test audience responses, the producers called upon the Wachowski brothers to inject some "action" into the piece. This was when uncredited sub-director James McTeigue came along.

The disconnect is super-evident. Implausibility would have perhaps been inevitable in this story anyway, but the clumsy patchwork destroys the mood and resolves everything with super-conventional rescues and a too-easy off-scene medical solution that restores everything to normal. Oliver's little friend Gene (Eric Benjamin) who had turned into a nasty little monster, is suddenly "cured" at the end and, having lost his parents, now lives with them. That's unintentionally creepy, and a sign of how poorly structured the screenplay wound up being with too many cooks.

The tie-in between the alien virus and the leads is simply made. Carol Bennell (Kidman) is a psychiatrist. People are certainly beginning to act strangely and as a behavior professional she's qualified to note that. Those who've "turned" don't sweat or show emotion. Ms. Kidman says, "My patient's husband was infected by an alien virus and all I did was prescribe an anti-psychotic drug. What an idiot I am!" Yes, but how was she to know? Her ex-husband Tucker (Jeremy Northam) has "turned," and when Carol suspects this, Tucker's sudden desire to have their little boy Oliver (Jackson Bond) spend time with him after a two-year absence is deeply sinister. (This movie might not be good for small children whose parents have separate households.) Carol's boyfriend--wait, make that "best friend"--Ben (Daniel Craig), is a doctor, who luckily knows Dr. Stephen Galeano (Jeffrey Wright, a brilliant actor completely wasted here), an ace virus scientist. The creepy menace of early scenes, which is truly disturbing, is thrown away with a too-easy resolution when vaguely referenced government efforts come together, the invasion is eradicated (off screen) and little Oliver is saved from his creepy dad.

A movie like 'The Invasion,' which takes an old zombie/alien theme and injects it with some political references, incidentally makes one realize why Phillip K. Dick's writing is so often adapted to the screen: Dick's books and stories are packed with original and provocative ideas. The thinking behind The Invasion is sloppy and skimpy. It seems to be talking primarily about how chilling and oppressive do-gooders can be. This could be seen as a dark vision of how projects to make the world better may be compromised by authoritarianism. Jeffrey Wright is in the lab finding a cure, and as Americans get their humanity back, violence starts up again. The way to stay human is to keep the world a mess. The irony is heavy handed. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq comes at us from TV screens; then as those infected with the alien virus begin to take over, there is peace. The idea of a conflict between wanting to change for the better and clinging to our old animal instincts is potentially an interesting one. But it's not helped in this movie by throwing in references to other current stuff like distrust of government, fear of a medicine-resistant pandemic, and squabbling with other ex-bloc nations in the Russian embassy. And none of these themes is well integrated into the action--nor do the events themselves seem menacing or exciting enough to outweigh the skimpiness of the ideas.

This is a clear example of what happens when a studio tests a movie on an audience, worries that it's too arty or subtle, and calls in a team of fixers. The result is a hack job that has good moments, but ends up not fully satisfying any audience.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews