Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) movie review - Sneak Previews with Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- This is the original review of Invasion of the Body Snatchers by Siskel & Ebert on "Sneak Previews" in 1978. All of the segments pertaining to the movie have been included.
![[Live] : ONE FIGHT NIGHT 25 วันนี้!! "อเล็กซิส vs รีเกียน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/suVr9a6BM2g/mqdefault.jpg)
![⚔️จำกัดเวลา⚔️ [พากย์ไทย] ซอร์ดอาร์ตออนไลน์ ซีซั่น 1 - ฉบับมัดรวมทุกตอน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ohkfBVDXLSA/mqdefault.jpg)
They're complaining about too many remakes and sequels 40 years ago. lol
Thank golly gosh we don't have that problem anymore. 😁
LMAO
Goes to show you this isn't a recent phenomenon.
@@comicbookninja5268 all laughs aside, this has been the case almost as long as there's been a Hollywood. When talkies were invented, studios made new versions of silent pictures. When Alfred Hitchcock became an international star, he remade some of his original British films with Hollywood budgets. There are now 4 versions of a Star Is Born.
What's different now is if you're under 40, you don't remember what it was like not to be able to own or rent old movies, where, once it's done playing at theaters, you had little control over whether you ever saw it again. So before the mid 80s, if a movie came and went, unless it was a big deal or regularly replayed in TV rotation, most people wouldn't realize if a filmmaker remade the same movie with different actors or title. Now it's almost impossible for a movie or show to be truly forgotten.
@@75aces97 True. They will continue to make sequels and remakes because the formula has proven successful with the original. Name recognition alone is valuable marketing that's hard to get.
I don't think they gave this movie nearly enough credit. The drama, emotional angst, good acting - it was all very engrossing.
They gave it the maximum rating .
@@reinforcedpenisstem
Yes.
But could they have given just a wee bit more....
You're right. Their praise is lukewarm and whiny even though they give it a "yes." It was the best movie of its year -- extremely subtle and creepy.
@@lambjack1 Doesn't work this way. What do you expect them to say? They gave it thumbs up & recommendation to watch it. So they focused on what they considered the films weaknesses. The opposite of when you give the thumbs down. You try to find any positives & saving graces.
@@OnePost909It is one of the best (if not the best) remake. Although it could be argued that the movie is actually a sequel to the original. Either way, an excellent film (4 stars out of 4)
This movie is genuinely scary, and I think has aged pretty well.
That has to be the most back-handed good review of a movie I've ever seen or read! Love the first one, like the third one, don't like the fourth one.....the second one is the creepiest, by far.
I saw both this and "Superman - the Movie" on the same day during the Christmas holidays in 1978. "Superman" was the big movie of the year everyone was waiting to see, and while it absolutely delivered I wound up being far more engrossed and riveted by "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"..one of those very rare occasions where a remake is equal to the original.
This was the golden era of horror remakes, and probably horror films in general. In my opinion there were at least 3 remakes that surpassed the originals: Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Thing, and The Fly. With The Fly there's no question that Cronenberg's remake was vastly superior. You could probably argue that Romero's Dawn of the Dead was a remake of his own film (you could also view it as a sequel, but it's really a matter of your preferred perspective).
@Tekhartha Zenyatta I suppose Superman is a remake too of the 50s version.
Plenty of good remakes since the 80s though. True Grit, Cape Fear, Dune, The Jungle Book, Bram Stokers Dracula, IT, The Dark Knight, Mad Max, Batman Begins, I generally prefer original films though. Most remakes are inferior.
Funny you said this: We went to see Body Snatchers with friends who were driving us. They went to the wrong theatre in town by mistake- that one was showing ...."Superman". (which I had ZERO interest in seeing). We forgot to tell them the movie was at the MALL theatre - so we did an about face and saw Body Snatchers and WOW ! Amazing ! I even remember they showed a Pink Panther cartoon before the movie!
I also saw these two movies in the theater, one week apart from each other. (Same theater, too.)
@@LannieLordOMG. I think I remember they did!!!!
the last scene of the film still gets me
And the human/dog.
I love how Kevin Mcarthy showed up in the beginning of the remake. Nice touch.
This is one of my favorite movies. More people should know about it. Sutherland, Nimoy, and Goldblum all in the same film!
The "running man" in this movie is the main character in the 1st movie. He's also in a very bizarre skit in the Twilight Zone, 1987.
That clip of Nimoy's character is the most odd ball 70's thing in the film, the pseudo psychology gibberish. All the rest of the film is pretty brilliant. But that Nimoy scene, every time I see it, I'm like..... "..wut...?" P.S. I love that cameo of Robert Duvall in the beginning, no lines, dressed as a Priest, swinging on a swing, so many totally creepy pod people moments.
I agree; it was stilted and unconvincing, even in the context of this film. The woman would Not have been convinced by his lame performance.
As for Robert Duvall, he wasn't playing a pod person, he was playing an actual priest swinging with little children; which was far creepier...
@@maskedmarvyl4774 It is now. Then, not so much.
Yes, always thought that clip was horribly edited, it doesn't flow at all, just really abrupt and unnatural.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) was in many ways comparable to The Thing (1982) where you just don't know who's real or not and may pose a mortal threat at any time. Still creeped-out by the Donald Sutherland scream at the end ;-)
You never dreamed about that dog coming to get you?
...and the Thing paid homage to that scene with the one guy that was half turned into an alien and let out the same inhuman scream before being torched.
Just like real life.
@@mikepastor.k6233 Yeah, and Alien 1 and 2, so personally, I'm sorta over that effect.
Wondee if it's the sane sound clip.
The 1978 version is much different from the original simply because of the changes from the 1950s to the late 1970s...
I think it is a great film. The scene where the Donald Sutherland’s character fails to wake up Brooke Adams’ character is heartbreaking...
In many ways this is superior to the original.
@@comicbookninja5268 And way more enjoyable than the next two remakes that followed.
actually if anything the original is better because, well it was original, but also its well done too and the twight zone paranoia was a much better fit for its era than this hippy yuppie era version.
Every aspect of this remake is top notch, but director Philip Kaufman is the unsung hero even though Siskel & Ebert do give him props. What really makes this film for me is the unusual direction. It's highly disorienting and unnerving in its weird camera angles, the long distance shots that linger on unusual behavior (Jeffrey disposing of his own body), hordes of unidentifiable seemingly regular people running and shrieking, a genuinely effective use of shaky cam when Matthew and Elizabeth are roaming about town, etc. And who can forget the camera closing in on Mathhew's mouth in the final scene? Add to this numerous other strange touches: the priest on the swing set, the gene-spliced hobo (Jerry Garcia!) and his pooch, Kevin McCarthy still running for his life after 22 years, Jeffrey sitting at home watching weather diagnostics scrolling by on television, Matthew peering into the peephole at the French restaurant, scenes of garbagemen disposing of fuzzball bodily remains. Everything is just a little bit off and it works to great effect. Before you're even 15 minutes into the film you see people running in the streets for their lives with distant screaming that you'll become much more intimate with later on.
This is exactly what a remake should be. Well made with the same basic story but completely different in execution. The decision to set this in late-70s San Francisco, which was full of kooks to begin with, was a stroke of genius. Was the weird looking dude reading Velikovsky in the mud baths already duplicated, or just another wacked out San Franciscan with a head full of acid? If you had seen that nut in the small California town setting of the original then you'd already be tipped off that he was gone. But in pre-yuppie San Francisco, who knows?
Really good and unusual use of sound and music too.
I feel like in complaining about it being a remake they're missing how well this movie captures the post-Vietnam, pre-Reagan malaise. The alienation comes less from Red Scare paranoia and more from modernity and technology. It was striking for the time and especially now in 2020
Correct. This movie from the start was very different. Sutherland tells a restaurant owner his prices are too high to be serving such crap. Nimoy as a pop psychologist telling everyone nothing is wrong, it's all in your head. When things get weird, Kevin McCarthy shows up again.
Yes. It was making a statement similar to Dawn of the Dead, in which they easily spotted the shots at consumerism. I wonder how the underlying message of this one got by them. Maybe they didn't see it because it hit too close to home.
In any case, we're overdue for another remake of Body Snatchers. It may be harder to build suspense though, since the pod people will be easier to spot with their red baseball caps. And replacing the screeches with three word chants might work better as parody, now that I think of it.
Indeed
These guys would complain if a jazz band riffed on standards or an orchestra played Mozarts 40th symphony.
I agree with other's comments about this film being genuinely scary. It is not campy like the original, which was an allegory on fear of Communism. This film is able to really feel the paranoia and dread of the uninfected by the takeover. The ending is an absolute knockout punch that leaves no hope left for humanity.
These two thickheads were a thing once!
Superficial, dismissive and damning with faint praise.
This film was a supreme artistic achievement in my opinion.
Sometimes they could be abrasive and off-putting; especially to each other.
I think that's half the reason people watched them, when they fought and argued....
Interesting how this movie relies so little on special effects..
shut up asbestos
both the original and this remake are great movies, which is rare.
Spock does pretty well in this! It will be worth checking out, thanks for these clips you put out!
Remakes existed back then, but not as frequently - which is probably why they're griping, but they'd applauded sequels and remakes since... It's ultimately an honor in a way. After all, Shakespeare plays were retold an nauseum over the centuries, albeit verbatim for the most part. Get the essence and characters right and that's 80% of the battle.
The last scene of the movie freaked me out
And the human/dog.
@@NemeanLion- yea the human dog is the wtf moment of the movie for me lol
Here's a bit of a mind screw. While they can't take on human emotions naturally, much like sociopaths, could the Pod People be capable of imitating human emotion to deceive the then majority of unconverted humans? I'm not quite talking about the inhuman shrieks they make when they find a human out, but rather when they yell or scream naturally or act completely opposite in their monotone. Much of why I ask, is because Leonard Nimoy's character always intrigued me. In the beginning he seemed like an average emotional guy until he becomes a pod. He uses his regular voice as the human Kibner and his Spock voice for the pod converted Kibner. However throughout the entire movie before he becomes a pod, he's spent most of it, not believing a single word they've said and coming up with "Rational" explanations to the strange behaviour the pods have expressed. I believe that he was one of the first to have been converted, pretended to have emotions to the point where they seemed natural, but when the minority becomes the majority, he drops the act.
Interesting theory. You may be correct.
Thanks Siskel, go ahead and give away the first 1 1/2 hrs of the film
It was a documentary about the future, which is present time. Everybody with a smart phone has been turned into a pod person.
ok boomer
It is a prophetic concept which is now our reality..the little dingleberries like the one below don't get that
@@Jaydogg222 Yup, ageist twerp.
Once saw a 7-11 Indian guy picking his nose behind the counter. 0 attempt to hide it. Full store. Full line. Nobody noticed.
Why? The gd cell phones.
@@Jaydogg222you don’t have to be a boomer to see what’s going on. Go back behind your phone
He says "why is it necessary?" Then moments later answer his own question with "if you haven't seen the other one."
Siskel : We're not Pod People
Oh yes you are Gene. The guy at 0:53 bears a very strong resemblance. So not only are you a Pod Person, but you're also one of the main conspirators involved in spreading the Invasion!
Dammit, you beat me to the same comment by a year! I don't care, I'm leaving mine up anyway....
The reason why Philip Kaufman made this film is because he was an absolute visionary genius. With this excellent remake, he predicted the transformation of the hippie generation into the yuppie generation.
“And why not? We’re not pod people. We have strong feelings about this film!” LOL
I love this movie. Glad they did a remake. Loved the paranoia and fear!
The original 1956 version is a time capsule allegory. The remake is truly haunting.
One of the better remakes of a classic original...they now both hold their own!
I have a hard time with Siskel's reviews as he so often gets basic details wrong during his reviews. Brooke Adams is not Sutherland's assistant and the aliens are not called pods. When he doesn't even remember basic (if unimportant) details it's hard to believe he paid much attention to the movies.
Good point.
I was bothered by the "rat turd/capers," which don't look anything alike.
Capers are dark green, striped with lighter green and round.
Rat turds are oval with points on either end and black.
Rabbit waste is round, but larger than capers.
Ironically the most frightening scene in the film is where Leonard Nimoy is telling Brooke Adam's that people are becoming less human. What's frightening about is hes not even talking about the aliens!
Or that the asian dry-cleaner who initially pleads "That not my wife!" eventually tells Jeffrey "She much better now. Much better" is less like a guy who was a human and now a pod person, and more like an old school mid 20th century husband who typically seemed content when their menopausal wife began taking Valium to stop being a nag and allow a man in his mid age crisis to sleep with strangers (and behave with benevolence toward the human husband for so many fresh pod ppl to make at early morning hours, rather than point out every bit of strange sexual fluid they find in their bedsheets jk
@@DVDuring interestingly right after that Veronica cartwright then did another sci fi film featuring an alien parasitic infection, Alien.
this film depicts most people today, especially in america and taiwan, which seem to be nothing but soulless zombies. I often wonder if this movie is non-fiction and actually did happen. no joke.
I believe that's called "schizotypal personality disorder." Basically schizophrenia lite..
Roger asks, "Why did they want to do a remake of Invasion/Body Snatchers?" 1. No matter what the reason, the movie was made. 2. An entire generation of new movie goers, likely have never seen the original, could be ONE answer. 3. For sure, Gene Siskel did not have an answer to Roger's question! 4. Roger had the influence to get in touch with the producers to ask the question. 5. Did he?
Fast forward 40 years later, the 78 version is the more loved and respected than the original.
I couldn't believe that aliens would waste so much time talking and NOT have a shrieky scream that travels long distances.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers and they don't notice that a Vulcan is living among them.
This movie scared the crap out of me.
i love the "invasion of the body snatchers" story, between film and tv versions i think ive seen something like 6 different versions at least and this is still my overall favorite. when i was a kid around that time the dog scene and the end scene freaked the absolute crap out of me more than any other film ive ever seen, "Alien" made the next year didnt have nearly as much of a traumatizing effect on me.
i also use to seriously confuse Brooke Adams in this, Deborah Van Valkenburgh in The Warriors and Karen Allen in The Wanderers. though Karen is easily my favorite.
For years I thought it was Karen Allen in this film. The more you learn.
The scene with the walking showing the feet seemed like a Mel Brooks movie lol, still I love the original and this version I watched recently and it holds up
Fun Fact Donald Sutherland took a Day off Filming Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Flew up to Oregon to Do a Small part in Animal House ...
This is so great. Excellent job.
I like these guys but this is why people don’t care for film critics. They like the film, they like the director and they like the performances, but yet their whole review is one giant complaint.
4:34 clint monkey no no , maybe its mono mix and body snatcher is Dolby stereo
Leonard Nimoy still used pure Logic in this flick.
Here they are complaining about remakes and sequels back in 1978 and it has only gotten worse--immeasurably worse--since that time.
Everyone is missing the point. This is a story about lost love and redemption....and pods.
Excellent sci fi
Good remake 😊
Spock knows where the bear shits in the buckwheat.
Between EFNY and The Thing Roger seems to just plain dislike John Carpenters style.
Eric Stran: Thank you for posting these Siskel and Ebert clips. Great stuff.
The ending was visually stunning, but a disappointing end to the story.
So... two thumbs up! 👍👍
I wondered if they liked this film. I was sort of mixed about it. The original was better since it gave us some hope at the end. This one didn't.
The 1955 original did not always have the hopeful ending.The prologue and epilogue was imposed on the film after test audiences were scared and depressed at the original bleak ending.It was meant to end with Kevin Mc Carthy acting like a madman trying to stop traffic and pods being moving on trucks.The highway scene was the films original ending.
rosselliswilkinson 1956 is when the original IOTBS came out.
@@rosselliswilkinson But not the book. Which had an ending I didn't really "buy into."
Spoilers:
If numerous stupidities about handling a simple virus is any indication, anyway...they'd eff that up, too.
Aaaaahhh, the 70's. When you could get full frontal nudity in a PG rated movie
Now, most PG movies are typically animated movies with some "rude humor" that goes over children's heads.
Ahhh...back when SP was on PBS and was the haunt of a select group of film aficionados...a kind of proto-yuppie social aesthetic mixing the medium cool electro-glamour of new media [TV] with the 'radical chic' posturing of neo-Algonquinites like Kael and Sarris that would becoming increasingly mainstream in the 80s [not a criticism, just a description of a sensibility]...and boy it was great...as S & E typically showed TWO - yes TWO LONG clips for each of the featured films and then kibbitzed at length [for TV] about each...we'll never see such again.
As for Kaufman's early masterpiece, it is more than 'a decent remake' of the original 1950s paranoia-satire of Communism, mixing elements of noir (Chapman's shadowy photography'), Hitchcockian auteurism (the seemingly random dolly shot toward the floor polisher), European nihilism and prescient tragicomedy (Kibner's $1.98 psychobabble self-help universe of people fooling themselves they have personalities is closer to our present 'reality' than many would like to acknowledge). In the end, Kibner turns out, darkly, to be right, offering a post-script to where the angel Bergman feared to but nevertheless tread twelve years before in 'Persona': "Don't be trapped by old concepts": the ineffable, discrete, body-locked, desire-driven 'personality' is an encumbrance, a simultaneous farce and trauma...our current slip toward transhumanism, the recalibration of 'personality' as 'data' and the fluid exchange/interchange of that outside the flesh seems to be fulfilling at last a SchopeNietzcHeideggerian will to will to will...
WOOOOOW... Hollywood was running out of ideas even 50 years AGO!!!😮😮😮😂
I wouldn't call this a remake of the original 1950's movie, It should be a called an extension of the original story. I do disagree with Siskel and Ebert, on them NOt being pod people, on giving so many good movies bad ratings.
They chose the lamest clips to show for this review, coulda picked a few better ones then those
Internet Gambling did that to me.
Warning: Spoilers!
I just think that Brooke Adams is Gorgeous
On hulu
They give away too much of the plot.
I still think the 1950s original is far superior to the 1978 remake.
Agree. Only version to be selected by Library of Congress.
The movie is a sequel not a remake.
No, it's a remake.
How on Earth can you consider this a sequel???? It doesn't take over where the previous left off. It is a remake with a different take but same premise. And it is better than the original. Just like Carpenter's "The Thing" is vastly superior than the campy original.
I think R.E. without his jaw at the end of his life is one of the most horrifying things I've ever seen.
His wife still loved him and stayed w him. Wonder how many men would in the reverse.
Awesome movie!!! Horrible review of this movie!!!
Why did they need to remake the original? The original was a lot better and it had a better ending, where there was some hope to fight the pods. Here there isn't.
It was a twist of terror at the end and made it way more effective
Spock warned us right here...lol
Ironic that Sutherland was in this and Animal House all in the same year.
this movie relates to covid politics so well