PDA

View Full Version : Oliver Hirschbiegel: The Invasion (2007)



Chris Knipp
08-20-2007, 05:33 PM
Oliver Hirschbiegel: The Invasion (2007)

Too many cooks: a classic case

Review by Chris Knipp

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 noisy car chases and a helicopter rescue in which Nicole Kidman proves to be a mean stunt racing driver. She also on several occasions kills some people in cold blood—providing rare moments of naughty 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 this time, of all things, is to create a more orderly, peaceful world. The irony—though clearly underdeveloped—is that this positive transformation is not 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 tends to become lost in the botched result that is The Invasion.

There are no monsters or gooey ectoplasm here, just little sheaths of clear tissue and some people whose faces glaze over—all of which, from the sci-fi action-movie standpoint, comes off as pretty lame. Meanwhile 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 Daniel Craig and Nicole 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 onrush of events 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.

Apparently what happened to The Invasion was too many surgeries by opposing doctors. Hirschbiegel had a low-keyed horror movie going on. We feel the chilling menace in the early sequences. Then because of some poor test audience responses the producers called on the Wachowski brothers to inject some more violence and noise into the piece. This was when uncredited sub-director James McTeigue came along. The disconnect is super-evident. Implausibility would have perhaps been inevitable, but the clumsy patchwork destroys the mood and resolves everything with utterly conventional rescues and a too-easy off-scene medical solution that restores everything to normal. Oliver's little friend Gene (Eric Benjamin) who turned into a nasty little monster, is suddenly "cured" 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 (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, some of which are 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. Big cut-in microscope images of pulsating test-tube viruses that appear rather arbitrarily every now and again are emblematic of the film's patchwork editing process.

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. Dick would have woven something fascinating out of it. 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 by not quite pleasing any audience.

tabuno
08-21-2007, 10:32 PM
The updated version of THE INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS is a more pure horror movie unburdened from the background innuendos of McCarthyism or the Communist menace that lay in the background of the original classic. Rather than the pure issue of humanity versus the absence of emotions being “clearly underdeveloped” as Chris Knipp asserts, the new adaptation actually carries the moral dilemma further than the classic original without the cynical diverting sarcasm that Chris Knipp apparently preferred in the second updated version starring Donald Sutherland. Even though there are allusions in this new version to current events such as North Korea, Latin American socialism, and Iraq, these events are seen in a “positive” way not a threatening, terrifying way that in some respects contaminated the pure enjoyment of the original classic. What was more intriguing was that Nicole Kidman’s character faced a much more difficult decision than that facing Kevin McCarthy near the climax of the movie.

Chris Knipp has interpreted in Oliver Hirschbiegel’s vision of the virus invasion that the elimination of emotions equates to the elimination of the “personality.” Yet if one were to make the same observation of Vulcans or Mr. Spock from STARTREK, the reaction might have been different. All the different memories, all the different experiences, all the logical implications based on the challenges of science remain even with people without emotions allowing each individual to be a unique and different personality.

Chris Knipp has effectively described this new version as a “low-keyed mood piece with some noisy car chases,” but in my mind all accomplished to great effect. While Chris Knipp apparently laments the absence of monsters or gooey ectoplasm being replaced with “just little sheaths of clear tissue” and coming off “lame,” I found this terrifyingly ordinary but somehow alien design one of the most effective visions of the movie. This “low-keyed mood piece” brings to the screen a much more intense, terrifying movie experience because of its reliance not of some gross out scare tactics but the more sinister transformation that goes unseen, bump in the night. The “creepy psychological elements” instead of focusing on the various social and political issues or the distracting use of “political satire” in 28 WEEKS as a sort of artificial emotional release for the audience are instead effectively transferred to the primal, basic issue of the moral tension between a peaceful, emotional-less world versus a world of emotional turmoil and devastation, and loveless relationships, a movie shorn of the excessive baggage of the evils of Communism and intolerance of differences.

The “creepy psychological elements” are much more in evidence in this updated version as Nicole Kidman attempts to survive in the world of blank stares and unresponsive people for continuous, extended intense segments of the movie. There are no deliberately cute time outs for Nicole Kidman as she attempts to maintain her maternal bond with her precious son.
There are no apparent low-budget movie earmarks in this movie as Chris Knipp asserts, even though low-budget movies do not necessarily imply lame and uninteresting movies as has been aptly demonstrated in THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (1999). Instead of Chris Knipp’s experience of this movie “lacking spectacular excitement,” this focuses more on the “low-keyed mood” of terror that permeates most this movie. It is not so much the spectacular action and dramatic elements that are so terrifying, but in the slow build-up to a rapid transformation before one’s very eyes of the ordinary into something seemingly alien. John Carpenter effectively used this ordinariness of and household horror of everyday common things to brilliant effect in his updated version of THE THING (1982).

There is a lot happening on the screen despite Chris Knipp’s opinion otherwise. The dramatic hypertension is miraculously brought to the America cinema in the amazing surgical operation of two directorships that appear to be naturally smooth in the increasing frenzy of panic and sleep-deprived desperation as Nicole Kidman slowly begins to discover the sinister takeover of her world. Chris Knipp is willing to describe the beginning of this movie as a “chilling menace in the early sequences” and then the injection of “more violence and noise” into the latter part of this tense science fiction, horror, psychological, action thriller.
What Chris Knipp appears to complain as implausible script devices with overly conventional rescues and simplistic medical solutions overlooks that fact that by the end of this 93 minute movie compared to the original classic’s 80 minute movie that a recap of the miracle medical solution would have been a terrible idea. It would be like trying to dissect and undertake an alien autopsy at the end of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS And the so-called conventional rescue, involved a rather dramatic car chase enveloped by zombies in what appeared to me one to be one the most creative chase scenes using a routine chase element of a car with people on it but to magnificent effect, much more believable than the updated crowded car seen in THE WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005).

Sometimes life is full of coincidences something that Chris Knipp is not willing to allow and likely describe the convenient relationship between a psychiatrist and an ace virus scientist as a cheap and lazy script device. However, this movie and many like it are not about the billion other people who are not fortunate enough to have such a relationship but focuses on a few people who exist in the lucky happenstance of having just such a convenient relationship in just such a horrible, unlucky situation.

Unlike Chris Knipp, I do not attempt to read into this movie “oppressive do-gooders,” “authoritarianism.” Instead of Chris Knipp’s concise premise of this movie being: the way to stay human is to keep the world a mess; I prefer to ponder the more pure classic dilemma of human emotions and reflecting of the message of this movie so aptly and more effectively demonstrated in this movie than the original – the importance of the human connection between mother and son who yet must experience all the complexities and complications that such a human connection begets in today’s world. The final result of this fusion of two directors is an amazing, absorbing movie that is full of emotional turmoil, exhilarating terror, and an exciting, mesmerizing, heart-pounding experience, among the most effective movies of this year for the popular masses. Over a third of IMDb respondents rated this movie a 10 out of 10 while one out of ten rated this movie a 1 out of 10 with younger audience members and female preferring this movie. Apparently this movie connects strongly to some and repulses other, a mark of a good, contemporary movie actually.

tabuno
08-22-2007, 12:12 AM
It's nice to get the attention of a real film critic along with a response that actually offers better insight into the commentary previously raised. I can imagine that psycho-thriller audiences and big-bang science fiction audiences are mutually exclusive in some extent being disappointed with the outcome of this movie.

When it comes to "personality," your reference to the very coments used in the movie about the lack of personality is sound to me.

While it is interesting to me to ponder the thought about the national and world-wide context happenings criticism yet the original classic and the WAR OF THE WORLDS also come back to the same more intimate and focused story telling perspective. The more narrow focus on the local situation from Nicole Kidman's perspective seems more compelling and personal with respect to bringing out the main premise of the movie - the emotional bonding between mother and son.

Chris Knipp
08-22-2007, 12:21 AM
tabuno, sorry, I deleted my post to add something and now I'm putting it back after your reply. If I put this here, can you delete your reply and put it after this? And then I'll reply to your gracious reply.--Chris.

Well, I would refer you to James Berardinelli's review, (http://www.reelviews.net/movies/i/invasion.html) which more forcefully than I emphasizes how Hirschbiegel's "low key horror" film was undermined and chopped up when the studio, worried by a poor test audience response to an earlier cut, called in the Wachowski brothers who appointed McTeigue, who got $10 million to come back some months later and insert ACTION into the movie (whreby Kidman got an injury and had to go to the hospital for treatment), so the revised, recut Invasion basically turned into two movies mixed and matched. And we can't really tell if Hirschbiegel's original intention would have been a great movie. But judging by his Downfall, it would have been a lot better than this. And judging by the early scenes, it would have been a lot different.

I was not saying I wanted monsters and ectoplasm. I was just pointing to the lack of such elements as part of my argument that the finished movie doesn't quite satisfy either the taste of the low key horror-psychological thriller audience or the big-bang SCI-FI action audience.

When you cite IMDb contributors' point evaluations, you're not citing an intelligent public, much less a critical response. These viewers are anonymous and without credentials or any proven track record whatsoever. Many of them can't even express their thoughts coherently. But what this shows is that the movie is getting some box office.


Chris Knipp has interpreted in Oliver Hirschbiegel�s vision of the virus invasion that the elimination of emotions equates to the elimination of the �personality.� Yet if one were to make the same observation of Vulcans or Mr. Spock from STARTREK I'm not saying that at all. In the movie, varous characcters say that family members who've been "turned" have lost their personalities, and it's also obvious in scenese and overtly pointed out that "turned" people show no emotion.

Whetehr or not a more detailed explanation of how the whole alien virus invasion gets cleared up would have been heavy-handed, the ending and the explanations not only felt rushed to me but left one hanging.

When I said that not much seems to be happening, that was because the movie doesn't develop the national or world-wide context enough so that we know what is happening outside the world of the main characters.
The dramatic hypertension is miraculously brought to the America cinema in the amazing surgical operation of two directorships that appear to be naturally smooth in the increasing frenzy of panic and sleep-deprived desperation as Nicole Kidman slowly begins to discover the sinister takeover of her world. Wouldn't it be nice if this were so, if the operation of two unrelated directors with their work cut toogether by a studio turned out to be "naturally smooth" and an "amazing surgical operation," but it never turns out that way.

I don't think the movie is the total bomb that the pre-release buzz suggested it was. Probably the critical response is overly influenced by that buzz and that may in part explain how The Invasion got a METACRITIC rating of 48 Jonathan Rosenbaum did make it a CHICAGO READER CRITIC'S CHOICE this week along with Ghosts of Cite Soleil and Rocket Science.

tabuno
08-22-2007, 08:07 PM
What I experienced as heightened anxiety throughout the movie was the fearful anticipation of future events knowing in a sort of vague nightmarish way what might happened because this movie already had its origins from Kevin McCarthy and Donald Sutherland's experiences and my experiences in earlier movies. Is it possible to comment on a movie such as this outside of the context of its predecessors? Was this movie so immensely appealing to some, including myself, almost solely on the basis that the earlier movies had perhaps foreordained the outcome in advance? Would Invasion have been as impression for me as it did?

Chris Knipp
08-23-2007, 01:29 AM
Frankly it's been years since I saw the original Body Snatcher movies, though I have seen them. I don't think this is really either a sequel or a remake, but more of a riff on the original book ideas.

oscar jubis
08-23-2007, 04:43 PM
I've been unable to come up with another source material that has been adapted into three good-to-great films. It seems logical to conclude the source material is excellent but I can't confirm that, as I haven't read Jack Finney's novel. I had already seen the classic 1956 Don Siegel version when the remake came out in 1978, when I was a senior in H.S. I remember being surprised at the artistic success of it, which mainly slows down the action and moves it from a small town to San Francisco. Abel Ferrara's arty 1993 version, set in Alabama in some kind of military installation, is quite good. The presence of Nicole Kidman in this fourth version gives me hope because she has a good track record as far as choosing the right scripts. I'm curious but I'm currently busy watching an Argentinean film series and attending to guests from abroad. Hope I can check it out before it leaves theatres. My son Dylan said it was "just ok".

oscar jubis
08-30-2007, 05:57 PM
It's become fashionable for moviegoers wishing to distinguish themselves from the unsophisticated masses to make general statements about the unworthiness of remakes. David Lynch satirizes this knee-jerk stance on Inland Empire when the Justin Theroux character exclaims "I don't do remakes" even though the original film based on the script he's shooting was never finished.

Those who feel most strongly against remakes seem to be the fans of the original movie which is the basis of the remake. They fail to realize remakes direct attention to the original movies that inspired them. I've noticed how dvd releases and cable broadcasts of older films take place around the time of the release of their remakes. Last weekend I attended a public screening of a new 35mm print of the original western 3:10 to Yuma. I doubt this film would have been handpicked to be screened if not for the fact that its remake opens nationwide tomorrow.

The fact that many bad remakes are being made shouldn't obscure the fact that roughly an equal number provide, at least, solid entertainment. The key question in my opinion is whether there are valid reasons to make a new film based on an existing premise or plot. Two films on current theatrical release seem to justify their existence in the marketplace.

The Invasion, the fourth film based on Jack Finney's "The Body Snatchers" has several new elements. This time the protagonist is a woman, which is not as significant as the fact that she's played by the always enjoyable Nicole Kidman and that she's a psychiatrist (whose main task is to prescribe drugs that repress extremes of mood in a film in which those infected by aliens are distinguishable by their flat affect). This remake adopts the brisk pace of the original 1956 film but provides new socio-political subtext_it's clear in The Invasion American sources of info are less reliable than foreign ones, for instance. Despite some studio-mandated "doctoring", the released version retains a few enticing flash-forwards, still a rather daring narrative device within a movie meant to appeal to the "unsophisticated masses". The Invasion has the audacity to suggest that perhaps the ETs are right, that our world is better off without humans, or rather, that we are creatures that would benefit from having part of what makes us human removed.

Another remake currently in theaters is Hairspray based on John Waters' comedy about the racial integration of a teen dance show in 1962 Baltimore. The 1988 film inspired a Broadway show and this is the film version of it, with John Travolta assuming the challenge of playing the role created by the legendary Divine. There are some interesting plot changes, such as creating the character of a young black girl who wants to be a "regular" in the TV show and expanding aspects of the relationship between the protagonist's parents. John Waters' film was tailor-made to become a musical and the results are consistently joyous and uplifting.

I remain skeptical about the new 3:10 to Yuma, but I'm not about to dismiss it outright because it's been done before.