Movie Review "The Invasion"

Creative Forums Art, Music, and Entertainment
1

The “Invasion” gets three and a half stars out of a possible five star rating in the Shotgun movie scale.

As usual, I have to warn the reader that this review may contain spoilers.

For those of you familiar with my other reviews, you’ll know that I have yet to give a rating higher than two stars for any movie.

“So why is this one different” you may be asking?

Well, when it is all said and done, “The Invasion” presents a clear message about humanity; a message that is in total accord with the traditional Christian doctrine of total depravity.

The movie is set in present day America, and and begins with a space shuttle falling out of the sky in a devastating explosion. Debris is trailed all over the world. The debris is infected with an intelligent fungus type alien that attaches itself to human DNA, and takes over the mind of its host during REM sleep. Kidman finds herself waging an internal battle between her convictions about humanity and her present reality; all while fighting off the urge to fall asleep and trying to save her son from the sad fate of all the other humans who have been infected.

The central theme of the film is articulated fairly well by an exchange between Kidman’s character and Roger Rees (who plays a Russian diplomat) at a dinner party.

As contrived as the dinner table conversation may have seemed, the content of it never-the-less accurately demonstrates (in my opinion) an antithesis between a more modernist approach to mankind’s apparent depravity, and the view of the postmodernist. (Kidman proudly proclaims at the climax of the debate that she is a postmodern feminist.)

Rees it seems, is pessimistic about the nature of man. He says the following to Kidman, (who plays a psychologist):

“A veneer of civility hides our true self impulses. That’s the nature of our world, yes? Civilization is an illusion, a game of pretend. What is real is the fact that we are still animals, driven by primal instincts as a psychologist you must know this?”

Assuming knowledge of psychologists, and their habit of prescribing medications, Rees continues:

“Can you help me? Can you give me a pill to help me see the world the way you Americans do? Civilization crumbles when we need it the most. In the right situation we are all capable of the most terrible crimes. To imagine a world where this was not so…this is to imagine a world that ceases to be human.”

I love the way Rees’ character points out the absurdity of prescribing pills to solve a difference in worldviews. He displays his belief in evolutionary materialism when he describes us all as animals, acting on our own primal instincts. This is apparently a bad thing for Mr. Rees, as well as Kidman, who belies her characters postmodern leanings in her first response:

“To be honest, when someone starts talking to me about truth; I hear what they are telling me about themselves more than what they are saying about the world.”

In postmodern thought, there isn’t much room for truth claims about the external world. Subjectivism and relativism prevail. This is even clearer in her concluding comment:

“I’ll give you that we retain basic animal instincts, but you have to admit that we’re not the same animal we were a few thousand years ago. Read Colberg, Maslow, Graves, Wilbur, and you’ll see that we’re still evolving. Our consciences are changing. 500 years ago postmodern feminists didn’t exist, yet one sits right beside you today. While that fact may not undo all the terrible things that have been done in this world; at least it gives me reason to believe that one day things may be different.”

I’m not sure who those guy’s are that she suggests for reading, but I googled Maslow, and found the following description about his book, “The Psychology of Science”:

A fascinating glimpse of what science and medicine might be like if we could work to “re-humanize” them. Maslow contrasts humanistic science with value-free, orthodox science, and offers a new knowledge paradigm to replace classical “scientific objectivity.”

Maybe Hollywood script writers are more informed than I previously thought? Maslow’s book (if the quoted review can be trusted) seems to fall right in line with Kidman’s argument:

Humanity needs to change its basic nature in order to rid itself of the depravity that is so prevalent in the world!

Kidman, Maslow, and the writers of “The Invasion” are right. As humans, we need to undergo a fundamental change in our very natures. Unfortunately (for them), this will not be achieved by evolution or new scientific psychological methods, but rather through the regeneration of our hearts by the workings of the Holy Spirit.

This movie gets three and a half stars for pointing out humanities depravity, and our need to be changed on a fundamental level.

Maybe one day, we’ll get a movie that glamorizes Christ and His wonderful gift of salvation as an answer to this depravity.

Whoaaaa… I must have fallen asleep writing this, because Christ being glorified in Hollywood could ONLY be a dream! Maybe I’m an alien now?

2

I loved the movie. :slight_smile:

( Nichol Kidman is also very hot looking.) :stuck_out_tongue: ( Would like to eat her up.)

3

Yes, Nicole Kidman is one of the most beautiful women in the movies.

She looked the best, (hands down) in Batman Forever

4

‘The Invasion’ got a lukewarm reception from both the critics and audiences and I didn’t see it, even though I enjoyed the original novel and the previous movie version. Then I found out about that scene mentioned in the OP, and I wish I had seen it - just for that one piece of dialogue, though if I did watch it at the cinema, I probably would have spit my drink on the person sitting in front of me when Kidman said the word “Wilber”:

That’s Ken Wilber, my favourite philosopher. It turns out the script of ‘The Invasion’ has been worked on by the Wachowski Brothers, makers of ‘The Matrix’ (which is full of philosophical references, of course). The W brothers are friends of Wilber and got him to do the ‘Philosophers’ Commentaries’ on ‘The Matrix’ Ultimate Collection DVD set. Anyway, it tickles me to hear that Wilber got a mention in a mainstream movie.

5

Doesn’t touch Elisha Cuthbert in The Girl Next Door

6

Wow Rocky,

I appreciate your comments. I didn’t know that the W. Brothers had a hand in this, although, I should have known.

I wrote a movie review of “V” a while back when it first came out. While I (as a Christian) am repulsed at certain mischaracterizations, and the glamorization of immoral lifestyles in their movies…I never-the-less am purely thrilled that they get (at least) the main thrust of a message out there, (just like in this particular movie.)

And, to Mr. Eclipse:

Elisha Cuthbert is probably the most beautiful woman alive right now…but, who knows? Nicole Kidman is perhaps in the top 10 somewhere though (in my opinion.)

7

I’m happy someone gave this quote in this movie some attention.

I just got done watching it. Yesterday, I went on a 6 hour wiki binge out of boredom (yes, I have no life). I read the histories of Austria-Hungary and Yugoslavia, because I didn’t know much about them and I figured I should. Fascinating stuff. Near the end of the binge, I had what you maybe would call a revelation. Sort of a basic certainty about the nature of mankind.

I was tickled pink when the Russian summed up the product of my marathon, just one day after it had occured to me (at least, with so much clarity). And especially since the last two lines of dialogue in the movie were a repitition of his earlier quote, solidifying the point the movie was trying to make. We are what we are. Should we be OK with it? Should we try to change it? Is it a tragedy or isn’t it. The movie really doesn’t say.

But I have to tell you, I can’t agree with any of your points about religion. Now I am not a religion-hater. I’m not religious, but I’m open to it. I enjoy the cultural aspects and I like the effects it has on people’s characters, at least in mundane, everyday life. The alternative would be boring, in my opinion.

That said, I think in the context of this topic, human nature can be boiled down to two things: true self impulses, and the veneer of civility. My favorite part of the quote is this:

“A veneer of civility hides our true self impulses. That’s the nature of our world, yes? Civilization is an illusion, a game of pretend. What is real is the fact that we are still animals, driven by primal instincts…”

I think our ‘true self impulses’ refers to what our genetic blueprint has instructed us to do - to propagate our genes. Of course the most efficient way to do this is sometimes (maybe a lot of the time) to limit other people’s ability to propagate theirs. It can be argued that that is a function of natural selection. And it provides a simple answer to why we can never seem to stop going to war. Regardless of how many technologies we come up with to increase everyone’s comfortability AND chances of survival, it’s curious that as soon as we can figure out a way to exploit those technologies in warfare, we’ll jump at the opportunity. For example, the second that flight is perfected (even before that, actually), bam, the first world war breaks out.

The other major facet of human nature is the ‘veneer of civility’, which refers to everything else.

Everything.

Everything that we come up with in our little 6%-used brains seems to be dedicated to explaining away the ugliness of our true self-impulses. Every time a country goes to war, it’s because either they feel their own survival is threatened with elimination, or they see an opportunity to increase their longer-term survival. In other words, to get ahead a little, and prolong the inevitable. And whenever a new war comes about, the screaming, obvious truth that these were the only two reasons for war every single time it’s happened in history, is always lost on each of the combatants.

If you’re honest, you’ll have to admit that religion is a part of the veneer of civility, which is what keeps replenishing our will to keep doing what makes us human.

This isn’t meant to be a criticism. Not of religion and not even of ourselves. It’s just an honest, neutral reflection. I don’t know which is more moving - the fact that our inherent nature is so consistently brutal, or the lengths to which we’ll go to hide that brutality from ourselves.

8

What you are calling a veneer of civility, is what I would call, an attempt by fallen man to repress his own manhood.

As Romans 1 says, they suppress the truth of God with lies.

Humanity is depraved, and fallen. On a certain level, mankind knows that he is in need of a savior.

This salvation will only come by a fundamental change in the nature of man, (as the movie shows.)

Thanks for the comments!

9

It’s a truly sad repertoire we - i.e. the mainstream - have with religious people. I really don’t envy them these days.

When you talk about fallen man, my first thought is, from where and whence did we fall?

Did this fall happen literally on a roller coaster, with coca-cola ads plastered on the sides?

And it just goes downhill from there.

Despite all my best attempts to take them seriously, and despite my good will towards them, I have never found a way to respect Members of the Faith.

Given you’re the topic starter, I’ll ask permission. Is it possible to skirt that topic somewhat, at least to an extent that feelings don’t get involved?

10

It’s hard to divorce “feelings” from any discussion, however, it is always possible to rationally discuss things without becoming blinded by emotions.

If you are clueless as to where we have fallen from, (even if granted a complete ignorance of the Christian worldview) I would be curious to know something.

Why, in your view, were the aliens in this movie “wrong?”

Was Nicole Kidman the badguy, in your view?

I mean, obviously, the alien society was much “better” in that, the world was united in peace and harmony. What better pragmatic benefit could there be?

If you are unwilling to admit to mans depravity, and need for inner change, then you cannot agree with the Russian OR Ms. Kidman. You would, (to be consistent) have to claim that the aliens were the good guys in this movie.

To say otherwise, is to admit to mans depravity.