MovieChat Forums > Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) Discussion > Just watched for the first time

Just watched for the first time

posted 10 years ago by matthew_548
17 replies | jump to latest

I used to watch Gremlins all the time when I was a kid and always wondered what movie was playing in the background when Billy falls asleep. So finally after thirty years I watched the original Invasion of the Body snatchers last night (God bless Netflix streaming)

For 1956 I must say it was a good movie. The acting is pretty weak (as it always seems to be in older movies) and I don't think anyone from today could be scared by it, but it was defiantly creepy and well done.

One part I hated and was literally yelling at the tv was at the end. After going through all of that why would the doctor leave Becky alone in the cave to investigate the source of beautiful music? I mean come on, you go through all the motions of protecting her the entire time and keeping her from falling asleep and then do that? Grrrr!

I would also have preferred the movie to end on a more dark note. I read some of the other posts about how it was supposed to end with him on the bridge, that would have been perfect. Or they could have had one of the doctors he was talking to from the beginning turn out to be a pod too.

Going to check out the 1978 version next!

[–] IrinaOma 10 years ago

The 1978 version is much better and scarier!

[–] dharmabum1966-1 10 years ago

The acting is weak as it always seems to be in older movies? You're delusional. New movies are terrible. Bad acting, writing, and directing. The only movies worth watching are older movies. As for this one, it scared me. Atmospheric and creepy, it was definitely worth seeing.

[–] RvaBread22 10 years ago

Are you trying to be ironic?
Acting in older movies is almost always light years better than modern films. Today's actors can't even hold a candle. Even the "bad" actors in the old days had more ability than today.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RvaBread22 10 years ago

The bland 1950s normalcy is what builds the suspense. In many ways it reminds me Alfred Hitchcock style. Creating something ethereal beneath the surface of the mundane. Makes it kind of like magic.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pathofthesword 10 years ago

If you knew beforehand what the movie was about the build up will seem too long but as the others have stated, it's also what made it work.

[–] MrCarmady 10 years ago

It's not a clever thing to do, true, but you have to remember at this point the doctor himself is severely sleep deprived, and has had several close brushes with death, so when a glimmer of hope that the two of them are not the only humans left appears he takes it, which proves to be Becky's downfall. So it's quite a cruel thing to do to her on the screenwriters' part, but it's certainly more thought through than you are implying there.

[–] srklondie 10 years ago

" The acting is pretty weak ( as it always seems to be in older movies ) "

What a truly ignorant statement. You obviously haven't seen many movies that were released before you were born.

[–] Erik-Bloodaxe 10 years ago

The major difference between the 56 and 78 movies is that none of the cast of the 56 moview were really big league stars. In the 78 movie Sutherland and Nimoy were already HUGE stars so it become something of a vehicle for them.
When I first saw the 56 I wasn't thinking "Oh is McCarthy going to use one of his catch phrases from Star Trek" or "will Dana Wynter be as funny as she was in the Dirty Dozen".
So in the 56 movie I just concentrated on the story, not the actors.

'Knowledge is cheap at any price'

[–] srklondie 10 years ago

Your second paragraph totally lost me.

[–] Erik-Bloodaxe 10 years ago

Nimoy was famous as Spock in Star Trek.
Sutherland was famous for a lot of movies including the Dirty Dozen.
McCarthy and Wynter weren't famous.
It was an analogy though it could have been better.

'Knowledge is cheap at any price'

[–] bizzniss 9 years ago

I hate when a lot young people watch older movies and try to review them. They seem to lack a certain level of escapism that expands beyond their current generation. It takes more than seeing a movie from 1956, you have to know what is was like to first be alive in 1956. You have to pretend to forget what came after and literally lose yourself in the time frame.

[–] Strangerhand 10 years ago

I'd already seen this excellent film many times over many previous years and decades, but I just saw it again like a couple of hours ago for the first time in quite a few years and it was as good as it's always been, even quite frightening and foreboding.

What freaked me out most of all in this viewing was seeing and hearing Dr. Bennell's attempted phone-call to the nearest FBI office, given the strange and terrible state of emergency that was becoming more and more apparent as they went along. Oh man, would that get my head sorely and worriedly wondering! I mean whatever might've been the actual explanation for that, it really could NOT have been good, even possibly completely catastrophic! Wow, did that not bode well at all! I swear, it totally freaked me the *beep* out, bad, man!

By the way, it worked so Horror-ably effectively because of the great acting of the involved cast-members, or else it wouldn't have, nay, couldn't have worked at all, not then and not now either, see.

I'd already given this Classic 10 of 10 stars years ago, and I did not change that after this last viewing.

[–] gamertrav 10 years ago

"The acting is pretty weak (as it always seems to be in older movies) "

Replace the world "older" with "horror" and you're right. Some of the greatest acting performances of all time took place in older films, but they weren't horror or sci-fi (which tended to be lower budget with less developed screenplays and less experienced actors).