I wasted my rental money on this movie after reading a 4-star review online by Roger Ebert when the movie was first released. This was a film that he would have given a 1-1/2 star to in the 1980s. It was so inferior to the original and the 1970s remake. It was obviously made with a very young audience in mind: much of the juvenile action took place either in a sporty little car or a bar. Both female leads looked like young males with no appeal or acting charisma whatsoever. Anyone looking at the female in the bar would have guessed her age to be about thirteen. The dialogue was so-so and the acting below par. This was the period when films were moving into the low-budget, independent "film making" period when most cinematograpy is done at one or two locations in one confined geographical area--in this case, a military base. Most of the action occurred at night to camoflauge unrealistic scenes. Don't spend a dime on it; if you want to watch it, wait until it becomes free on Prime or YouTube. Otherwise, spend your rental money on the 50s or the 70s version.

1993's 'Body Snatchers' was another retelling of the classic 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' story first told in the 1956 film and then the 1978 remake. SYNOPSIS: 'A teenage girl and her father discover alien clones are replacing humans on a remote U.S. military base in Alabama.' 'Body Snatchers' takes a different look at how the aliens start to take over America and offers 87 minutes of pure paranoia and tension. Director Abel Ferrara delivers a perfect counterpart to the 1956 and 1978 offerings whilst adding something unique with the side story of the loss of a parent and the interactions, and life, with a step parent. For me though this film falls well below the standards of the 1978 film, especially when it comes to practical special effects. The 1978 film really shouldn't look better, feel scarier and be more visceral, but it is. However, this is still a very entertaining and scary film. 7/10

Something of an outlier in these adaptations, which is mostly for the better. The ending feels a little too easy but before then there's real visceral terror in shifting the focus from society at large to a family unit.

By far the weakest version.

Runs out of steam towards the end as it doesn't really know what to do with itself, but overall not a bad Body Snatchers remake.

Worth watching, totally the 90's horror feel.

Something of an outlier in these adaptations, which is mostly for the better. The ending feels a little too easy but before then there's real visceral terror in shifting the focus from society at large to a family unit.

An awesomely creepy and unsettling update of the Body Snatchers story. Why this film was not better received is beyond me, as it's a far superior film that it has any right to be. The filmmaking and direction is spot on. It's well-constructed narrative is somewhat letdown by the messy last few minutes - but leaving that aside, its a ripper of a movie and one that deserves to be revisited. Far, far superior than the Nicole Kidman "remake" years later, The Invasion.

By far the best adaptation of Finney's novel and the superior film version of the tale. Criminally underrated and unappreciated, any reading of social commentary regarding the setting misses the point that the more isolated a community, the easier it is to subvert. Plain and simple: This is a brilliant horror film, and perhaps Meg Tilly's best performance as the seductive, chillingly reasonable duplicate of a once-loving mother. The rest of the cast is just as skilled and engaging, and the ending will leave your skin crawl9ng for years as you recall the closing lines. Not to be missed.

Solid, tense remake. Upon reviewing this one all these years later, it's apparent that it stands right up there with the first two adaptations. The narration and line at the end, while admittedly a bit melodramatic, offers up something the chew on and think about after the credits have rolled. It's quite good I think.

Scariest movie ever!

Unnecessary and disappointing remake. Starts off boring, cliched, and full of ambiguous unnecessary narration. Far from subtle. Very meandering. The effects weren't good; cheap and not effective. The story changes weren't bad, just more contained and simple...but not well established.

Such a classic. Love it

23/7/2017 - Completely out classed by its two predecessors. There was no point in making this piece of shit.

it could of been better but it was ok

Absolute rubbish. A waste of time and money. Pathetic drivel.

Overall, un film assez crappy... mais! Contient certaines des scènes m'ayant le plus fait cauchemarder étant enfant

The 3rd adaptation of Jack Finney's story "The Body Snatchers" is a strange, hybrid affair. Robert H. Solo, who produced the 1978 Philip Kaufman version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", started up the project in the late 80's with Larry Cohen attached. Cohen wrote a treatment that barely referenced Finney's story, but utilized a lot of elements from the 1956 and 1978 films. When he couldn't get the Cohen film financed, he tried again with Stuart Gordon, and Gordon and Dennis Paoli wrote a script. Finally, Abel Ferrara was brought on board to direct, and he had his writing partner Nicholas St. John rewrite the screenplay. The result is a film that feels very little like a Ferrara film, except perhaps in mood and tone and the extremeness of some of the imagery. At the time it was made, it was the least of the three films based on this story, but it's still a mighty entertaining early 90's horror/sci-fi outing. Meg Tilly is the standout here, and she gets an amazingly creepy monologue.

The third adaptation of The Bodysnatchers became a horror film rather than bringing some mystery or thrill to the audience. The special effect and ambiguous ending were great but the setting and acting could have been much improved to eradicate the dullness.

This movie built well, and was moving well (although how did that guy not know his wife was... well, you know...), and moments of cunning deceit by the aliens were so frightening! But that ending... they could've done something else. No wonder it was only 82 minutes long. I really liked a lot of this movie, but the senseless nudity was too much. I mean, she's supposed to be a 17 year old girl (obviously played by a 21+ actress), so that's creepy. But it's likely that's the part that appealed to the director... I would've given this three stars, but the inappropriate nudity which no one needs to see made this a 1 star flick never to be watched again. HRMPH!!