R.I.P. Leonard Nimoy: Invasion Of The Body Snatchers Holds Up Surprisingly Well!

The Good: Engaging plot, Decent direction, Interesting characters
The Bad: Obviously dated and derivative, Somewhat overbearing soundtrack elements
The Basics: Invasion Of The Body Snatchers is appropriately creepy and holds up surprisingly well, despite being a fairly formulaic science fiction horror film!


Like so much of the world, yesterday, I was saddened to learn of the death of Leonard Nimoy. I was saddened, but not surprised that Nimoy died given his health problems. Leonard Nimoy was a childhood hero of mine for his portrayal of Spock in Star Trek (reviewed here!) and the first (of several) times that I met him, it was such a big deal for me that I wrote a short story about it. Given my appreciation of the works of Leonard Nimoy (and liking how very cool he was in real life!), there were remarkably few works of his for me to watch and review in order to pay tribute to him. But, today I discovered that he was in the 1978 remake of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers.

I remember seeing the original 1950s version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers back when I was a kid (my father started getting out all manner of classic science fiction films from the local library when the family got a VCR and the 1956 Invasion Of The Body Snatchers was one of them!). The 1978 Invasion Of The Body Snatchers has a virtually identical plot, but is updated with characters and a sense of style, location, and period that is VERY 1970s. This version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers might not be the most original conceptual work, but it still has a high creep-out factor and has a cast that is suitably impressive. In addition to one of the most unsettling and obscure cameos by Robert Duvall, Invasion Of The Body Snatchers features Leonard Nimoy, Donald Sutherland, Veronica Cartwright, Jeff Goldblum and a time-travelling Sir Ian McKellen (at the party scene where Kibner is introduced, a post-X-Men Sir Ian McKellen can be clearly seen wearing at hat similar to the one he wore in X-Men).

San Francisco has experienced an influx of extraterrestrial pollen, which has begun developing on plants throughout the city into colorful red flowers. The Department of Health inspector, Matthew Bennell, is methodical and precise (and fairly dispassionate) and is going around the city doing his usual work inspecting local restaurants when his friend and co-worker, Elizabeth Driscoll, comes to him very concerned about her husband. Elizabeth insists that Geoffrey is not actually her husband and Bennell fears that she is simply paranoid. Driscoll follows her husband around town one day and sees him meeting with a wide variety of people who have no apparent connection to him, passing packages between them. The two, along with Jack Bellicec, meet with Bennell’s friend, prominent psychologist Dr. Kibner, who insists Driscoll is overreacting.

But soon, it becomes apparent to the logical Bennell that there is, in fact, something going on. Bellicec and his wife, Nancy, find a strange body at the baths at which she works. Bennell witnesses a similar mysterious, under-developed body at Driscoll’s home and realizes that these things are growing into people. Believing that people are being duplicated and replaced, Bennell and his friends try to alert the proper authorities, but those around them seem to be universally affected by the strange plants. With the bulk of the city succumbing to alien vegetable replication, Bennell and his friends race to escape the city and the parasites!

In addition to seeing Leonard Nimoy as the creepy, 1970’s self-help dialogue-spewing Dr. Kebner, there was a high degree of excitement for me in seeing Donald Sutherland in Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. Sutherland has virtually the same role in Invasion Of The Body Snatchers as he had in Robert A. Heinlein’s The Puppet Masters (reviewed here!), which I grew up on! Despite the dated qualities, Invasion Of The Body Snatchers is very successful at what it sets out to do.

First, the characters tend to react like very real people. Bennell wants to help Driscoll, so he takes her to a psychiatrist friend of his. Dr. Kebner is instantly skeptical of Driscoll’s claims that people aren’t who they say they are. The scientists in Invasion Of The Body Snatchers do not instantly have all the answers, but people like Driscoll and Bennell approach the problem with a scientific and methodical methodology. That makes all the characters, despite the fantastic circumstances, pop with a sense of realism that most contemporary films lack.

On the acting front, Invasion Of The Body Snatchers is good. Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams, Leonard Nimoy and Art Hindle are all wonderful. Veronica Cartwright does a decent job of playing Nancy, though there is little differentiation between her character in this and in Alien (reviewed here!). Jeff Goldblum, who appears in Invasion Of The Body Snatchers as Jack, clearly grew into looking good (he’s scrawny in this).

Even the pod people in Invasion Of The Body Snatchers have some development and philosophy, which makes them better-than-average invader adversaries. It is worth noting that this version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers is a pre-PG-13 PG. In other words, it has some more graphic elements that parents might not want their children exposed to (most notably a skull being beaten in like a pumpkin).

Invasion Of The Body Snatchers might be a remake, but it is creepy and well-executed and it is easy to see why someone like Leonard Nimoy would take a role in it!

For other tributes, please check out my reviews of:
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (Bob Hoskins)
The Fisher King (Robin Williams)
A Late Quartet (Philip Seymour Hoffman)

7/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Abysmal Thriller That Is Lacking In Psychological Horror Is Anything But Twisted

The Good: Moments of Samuel L. Jackson's performance, Ultimate resolution
The Bad: Acting, Characters, Most of the plot, Neatness of all the pieces coming together
The Basics: In a truly terrible psychological thriller that is anything but thrilling, Ashley Judd runs around investigating a series of murders she may have committed, but the audience doesn't care about.


When I sat down recently to watch the thriller Red Eye, I was marginally excited about the movie because of the presence of actor Cillian Murphy. When I came across Twisted today, I was surprised to find a movie with Samuel L. Jackson that I had not even heard about. Then again, as an episode of Family Guy noted, there was a time Samuel L. Jackson was in everything. Sadly, Twisted failed to sell itself even with the accomplished actor as one of the three leads.

Jessica Shepard has just been promoted to homicide detective in San Francisco, despite her use of force on a recent suspect. Her foster father, the police commissioner, John is proud of her, but sends her to the department shrink anyway - a necessity in most cases where there is significant violence or trauma. Shepard attends, joins the homicide squad and meets her new partner, Mike Delmarco. Her first case is finding the killer of a man who she recently had anonymous sex with. She believes that there will be more victims and her hunch soon proves correct as another past partner turns up brutally murdered. As the body count grows, Shepard begins to become more and more concerned that she might be capable of the grizzly murders and she sets to finding the killer, even if it is herself.

Twisted fails almost right from the beginning because of the premise it expects the audience to accepts; Shepard is the daughter of a former police officer-turned-serial-killer working under the guy who partnered with him and who brought him down. And who was his father. Medical shows more often than not get it right with issues like this where a doctor cannot have a family member as a patient. Parents who have children who are cops are usually forced to work outside the jurisdiction of the parent.

But then there are those other, more pressing character conflicts. Shepard is an excellent cop, but she leaves work each night, gets completely drunk, has anonymous sex and blacks out. Or she simply drinks so much she blacks out. Under these circumstances, why wouldn't she stop drinking? Or better yet, why doesn't the department relieve her when she comes up as a suspect? Sure, the movie answers that question, but it's a feeble answer and none of the major characters challenge the stated reasoning.

There's an even simpler set of options; when she becomes a suspect, why don't they give her an ankle bracelet to wear and put her under house arrest? Or even just put a police tail on her. That last option is the most simple, direct and logical one for a precinct to do and given how often the Internal Affairs Department popped up on NYPD Blue, it's astounding that they don't show up here when a police officer is the prime suspect in a series of murders.

But that's why Twisted does not work. It's asking the viewer to stomach a lot of pretty ridiculous assumptions. At least when I write that one possible interpretation of the movie is that writer Sarah Thorp wants to illustrate some real negative consequences of having promiscuous, anonymous sex; her script utilizes Shepard's sexual promiscuity as a character weakness to be exploited and a reason that she begins to degenerate into madness. No free love for Thorp! I'm not into that sort of thing, but in the case of Twisted, it just seems like such a convenient scapegoat to brand Shepard with.

Unlike Shepard who has something that can be looked at, analyzed and debated none of the other characters have any real character. Shepard's new partner, Mike, is completely flat and his place in the movie revolves almost completely around Shepard. Similarly, Shepard's new police adversary in Homicide, Becker, is just a "type" - the antagonist figure. As for John Mills, Shepard's foster father, all of his motivations are simply stated at the end, with no true and genuine development throughout the movie. Instead, he simply explains to Shepard and the audience why he took in his dead partner's daughter.

It's not enough of a role for even Samuel L. Jackson to save and he doesn't. Twisted is an example of a role that even a great actor cannot do anything with. As a result, Jackson adds no flare or charisma to John. His entire time on screen, he is simply reciting lines and his performance feels like that.

Other performers suffer as well. Camryn Manheim illustrates none of the genius that she exhibited on The Practice with the bit role she has as a lab technician. In fact, she might not have even gotten out of her chair for the role. Andy Garcia, who play's Shepard's new partner, Mike, is very flat in the role. Director Philip Kaufman could have saved some money and used Ray Abruzzo and gotten at least as good results.

But much of the movie rests on the shoulders of Ashley Judd, who plays Shepard (and looks a lot like Nicole de Boer in this film!). Judd disappoints, adding no flair to Shepard. Her character's sex is dull and Judd looks bored throughout those scenes, but even worse, her affect is terrible when her character begins to make the connections and comes to believe that she might well be a killer. Judd fails to emote and she is certainly not empathetic as Shepard, making much of the movie unbearable to watch.

The best part about this DVD experience was also one of the most simple; when the disc booted up, it gave me the option of watching the previews or going to the main menu. Unlike most discs lately which simply launches into the previews, this one gives the viewer a choice. I should have cut my losses while I was ahead and simply watched the previews and skipped the feature. You need not make the same mistake as I!

For other works with Ashley Judd, check out my reviews of:
Star Trek: The Next Generation - “Darmok”
Star Trek: The Next Generation - “The Game”
Someone Like You
Frida
The Tooth Fairy

1.5/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

So This Is NC-17? Eh. Henry And June

The Good: Easy to watch, Some characters, Some acting
The Bad: Characters get lost in pursuit of style, Repetitive after a fashion
The Basics: An engaging character-driven opening continues for half the film before Henry And June gives up and becomes a series of simulated sex scenes.


Henry And June was easily one of the most mistitled films of the 1990s, but I suppose the only thing people will go to see less than an NC-17 film is one entitled, "Henry and Anais." The truth is, the film is more about Anais Nin than Henry or June. C'est la vie.

The plot of Henry And June is rather simple and straightforward. Anais Nin is living in France with her dull husband Hugo who, at her request, brings back people who are quite alive. This takes the form of the American author Henry Miller, a robust man who is quite in love with his mostly absent wife June. Hugo spends much time out of the house and so Henry and Anais begin an affair which complicates both of their lives. What follows is a series of sexual escapades involving Anais and Henry, Anais and June and Hugo and Anais as well as Anais and a few others. After the first half of the film, the movie becomes a repetitive block of sexual experimentation wherein Anais explores rape (by her husband), lesbianism, adultery, incest (with a cousin), and more, I suppose.

Okay, here's the thing; I'm not a prude, but I suppose the MPAA is. There are certain rules for films that are generally known. For instance, if the male organ is aroused, the general rule is it won't appear in the film and get an R rating. The MPAA rates films and it must be run by a bunch of misogynistic men, because they are far more lenient on what may be shown of a woman's body. Given that double standard, I'm baffled as to why this film is NC-17. There are breasts. Yup. They're all over in the film. That, however, tends to be the extent of the nudity. Most of the rest is simulated sex and vague images and fantasies mid-coitus. Go figure.

So, what's to recommend this film? Surprisingly, some of the characters. Anais is all right, but the film's best moments come from Henry Miller. Fred Ward, who plays Miller, is exceptional, infusing energy and life into the character. In some ways, the film is Henry's journey to understand women with the help of Anais. The problem is that that plot begins strong and is overcome by Anais' experimentation. In the few moments he's on screen, Kevin Spacey delivers as Richard Osborn.

What sinks the film is that the characters become more nebulous as the film goes on. Anais becomes far less defined than she was in the beginning, Hugo disappears altogether. And Henry, even though he writes Tropic Of Cancer, becomes much less vital. June's brief appearances show no growth and her initial ease in the film is lost. But more important, most of the characters take a second spot to Anais and - while quite simply beautiful, she's uninteresting - her repetitive exploits with her sexuality. That is to say, the film begins as a character-driven story and then degenerates into a "and now she tried it with" tale and that keeps repeating.

In the end, the reason I'm recommending the film is that it's not unenjoyable, it simply is a piece that is remarkably inconsistent. And there is just enough of the characters doing character-related things at the end to make it worth your time and attention. There are, however, other pieces I'd recommend more.

For other movies with a strong erotic component, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Bound
Love And Other Drugs
American Beauty

5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |