Body Snatchers (1994)

Because every fifteen years or so Jack Finney's seminal novel, "The Body Snatchers," is apparently required to be re-adapted to the big- screen, we have been treated to some versions that are absolutely iconic (1978) and some that are downright awful (2007). Riding the middle lane is Abel Ferrara's 1993 digression, simply titled "Body Snatchers."Set on a military base, "Body Snatchers" is notably different from other versions of the story in more ways than one. Because of its isolated (and often one-note) locale, the plot feels slightly claustrophobic and, at a breezy 87 minutes, a little half-baked as well. A change in pace, this version of the story concerns an EPA agent (Terry Kinney) and his family, who are stationed at the aforementioned base. Naturally, an alien life-form has slowly crept in, turning his already dysfunctional family against one another. Meg Tilly plays his wife, who is given perhaps the film's most interesting dialogue (it's all about that chilling "Where you gonna go?" speech). Teen daughter Gabrielle Anwar, meanwhile, mashes up with a few locals, which happens to include a walking cliché gen-Xer played by Christine Elise. This piece of the plot doesn't really add up to much and only distracts from the tightly-wound story. Maybe they were trying to play to a younger audience? At any rate, it doesn't really do the film any favors as, aside from the always-game Elise and charming Anwar, the other teens/youngsters are almost as cold and lifeless as the husks left in the aliens' wake.In spite of its flaws, the film is really quite basic in a charming way yet it's all over seemingly just as it starts to gain momentum. Abel Ferrara's direction is, erm, able. With the look of a Tony Scott or even an early Michael Bay production, his film is perhaps the most stylized of all the "Snatcher" films and most definitely a product of the '90s. The special effects are the true star here, with some truly grotesque stuff including the birth of the "pod people." None of this improves on the 1978 version, which is arguably the best adaptation thus far, but as a keyhole, glimpse into a small story taking place within a larger event type film (think "10 Cloverfield Lane"), it works quite well. If you find this one languishing on a shelf, collecting dust, it's certainly worth snatching up.

This is the Third in a Series of Four Films from Jack Finney's Novel "The Body Snatchers" Written in the 1940's and Published in 1955. It First was Serialized in Collier's Magazine in 1954."Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1956) Directed by Don Siegel... "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1978) Directed by Philip Kaufman... "Body Snatchers" (1993) Directed by Abel Ferrara... "The Invasion" (2007) Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel The First Three Versions all have Redeeming Value as Films and Social Commentary, although this one is Certainly Concerned almost Exclusively with the more Personal Horror of it all. Director Abel Ferrara, most known for Fringe Exploitation with Hard Edged Realism, gives this Sci-Fi Stalwart a Good Try with the Help of Horror Genre Participants Larry Cohen and Stuart Gordon.It's a Fittingly Creepy Affair with a Share of Chills and Shadowy Sullenness. A Few Scenes are Decidedly Unsettling with Ferrara Skirting the Edges to Disturb. But Overall the Movie seems a bit Rushed and its Short Running Time (88 Minutes) does not allow for much Suspenseful Buildup. A Good Cast all Contribute to make this a Watchable Remake and Despite a Tacked On "Explosive" Ending (the weakest element) it has a Following that Grows Every Year. Most Likely because of Cult Director Abel Ferrara. Note...The latest remake with Daniel Craig and Nicole Kidman is virtually worthless and nowhere near as entertaining or artful as the other three telling. In fact it is borderline bad.

The original story by Jack Finney is thrown headlong into the 1990s in this, the third adaptation of the original classic of paranoia, following the other versions released in 1956 and 1978. While this film could have been a total fiasco, much like other remakes we've been seeing in the '90s, the one saving grace is the presence of director Abel Ferrara, who, along with Stuart Gordon and Larry Cohen lifts the average material to more than it might have been. However, it might not be enough...The trouble with horror films of the 1990s is that even when they do get something right, they do just about everything else wrong. WISHMASTER had great gory ideas, but a tepid plot. I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER, well... that didn't really have anything did it? Anyhow I digress. BODY SNATCHERS is full of atmospheric imagery and bursting with style, but sadly the plot and script are turgid, relentlessly chewed up hundreds of times before in other films, and therefore lacking any real sense of menace.Ferrara gets carried away with the Raimi-like diagonal camera angles, filling every scene with haunting shadows. Which is great, you know, but somewhat...pretentious? Unfortunately the cast is populated with dense, unlikable characters, and even the little boy turns out to be a stereotyped whining American brat. The females are bland, the actor playing the father is expressionless, with the only believable character being Forest Whitaker (ironically his character is almost an exact replica of Kevin McCarthy's hero in the original classic). This really drags down the attention level. Plot wise, the idea of setting the story in a military base is quite effective, but once you realise that it's just a one-note idea which is never fully explored, then you feel that it's quite a letdown.The film is in two halves. In the first half, there are vague shadows and sounds but nothing much really happens. After an effects-laden scene in the middle of the film, it becomes one elongated chase movie, all set at night and involving people running in a variety of settings. Does this sound like your idea of fun? Not really. The film does benefit from some good special effects in the form of the alien pods, although they're almost exact replicas of the pods from 1978's sublime INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS.There is some nudity put in to spice things up which seems quite desperate, and two great scenes which make the film worth watching. However apart from these key moments and an ambiguous ending, the film never really goes anywhere. If it was original I would give it a higher mark but the trouble is that we've seen it all before, twice before, and it was better both of those times so the third outing just appears to be a tired rerun of the earlier events.

A teenage girl and her father discover alien clones are replacing humans on a remote U.S. military base in Alabama.So, as of today (2015) there are, to my knowledge, four official versions of this story. The 1950s, the 1970s, the 1990s and a movie called "Invasion" from around 2007. The first two seem to be vaguely inspired by the novel (which is very good), the third one only loosely so, and I have no idea about the fourth.I want to like this one. It is not a bad movie. Some say it is the best, but I am not sure exactly why they think that. For me, it will always be the 1970s one that reigns. This one just seemed weak. I like what they tried to do with the gore effects, but they are no real improvement over the 70s version, and the characters just are not as strong (nor do they have the actors to back them up).