Mr. Stitch (1995 TV Movie) User Reviews

The ultimate act of recycling just woke up.

[ragana · 4/10 · 26 April 2005]

A very, very stylized, starkly minimalistic, risky vision of the idea of life without birth, a la Frankenstein, involving a military funded operation to build the perfect soldier (Wil Wheaton) with the use of body parts from eighty-eight individuals. The "Stitch Project" initially appears to be a success until the creation begins to remember those who he was and those who he loved. A more "thinking/talking" than "doing/action" piece (until the last few scenes). Intriguing and weird at the same time. Definitely won't be everyone's cup of tea.

Ron Perlman has a small role, told in flashback, of a doctor who was initially involved in the creation process and ends up becoming literally a part of it after he is killed trying to stop the military from subverting his work. He has some beautifully sweet romantic moments with love interest and fellow Stitch Project doctor Nia Peeples.

Favorite line(s): "Without choice you can be alive but you wouldn't be living." "Music is like poetry or fiction only put to sound."

Favorite line spoken by Ron Perlman (and Wil Wheaton): "If you believe it in your heart than follow it otherwise don't be so eager to concur with the opinions of others."

Due to its almost severe style, I would suggest renting before buying.

Yikes, poor Wil Wheaton...

[PTCfromDE · 5/10 · 5 January 2002]

This movie had potential... an interesting premise... a not too bad first half... then, in the middle, it gets really really bad... screaming out for the MST3K treatment... where did those "funny cars" come from? And the skeleton appearing in the smoke of the car explosion... and the daisies in the foreground of the car chase scene... it almost looks as if someone malicious substituted "crank footage" for the last reel in a deliberate attempt to sabotage the movie.

But ultimately, if you are a Wil Wheaton fan, it's not THAT painful to watch. Well, ok, actually it is kind of painful, but it does have some genuinely interesting moments, and some touching scenes. Enough that you just have to feel bad for Mr. Wheaton... this COULD have been a much better film.

Worth the watch

[Billiam-4 · 6/10 · 27 August 2021]

Interesting and imaginative take on the Frankenstein topic is stylish (the first half reminiscent of THX 1138) and explores the philosophical implications of creating an artificial human (Whil Wheaton in a surprisingly original make-up), but in its finale somewhat descends into a more action-oriented (and more clumsily staged) spectacle; nevertheless well worth a watch.

imaginative fare

[gpeltz · 20 February 2001]

I enjoyed this one, it was a take off of the Frankenstien theme, but this time, an androginous being is assembled, and educated by a caring mentor. It was well filmed, without the violence associated with the genre. The creature asks for two books to read, the bible, and Frankenstien. The effects were modest but effective, the story was intelligent, a decidedly off the beaten track tale, that rewards the viewer who comes to it with diminished expectations. If you like Science fiction, give this one a try.

bad, bad, bad

[jpslostad · 1/10 · 9 August 2008]

I kept thinking once they'd revealed what the main character Mr. Stitch looked like that he resembled one of those patchwork leather purses you see on bad infomercials or because of the dark circle of flesh around his right eye and the multiple textures and colors of hair - he looks like a cheap version of Disney's "Shaggy Dog". Wil Wheaton and Rutger Hauer are fine actors, but these are not stellar performances. Wheaton is so low-key so as to almost be sleepwalking through this. And sorry, but I couldn't see Nia Peoples falling for Ron Perlman - He's great in Hellboy where his unusual features are a strength to his character, but here he just looks strange. Great film to make snarky comments ala Mystery Science Theatre 3000, but as anything serious in terms of decent sci-fi this falls painfully short.

I just don't know where to start...

[Black-9 · 1/10 · 6 January 1999]

Sure, it's great that people try to experiment when they make a movie, but do they literally have to destroy everything in terms of story, acting and credibility? This is is by far the worst movie I've ever seen. Ever. It doesn't even deserve 1 of 10. Avoid at all costs.

Poorly acted movie with Rutger Hauer far from his best form

[TheFog-3 · 1/10 · 13 May 1999]

This movie is in my opinion a real stinker. Poorly acted, poorly casted, poorly paced and bad settings makes this movie to the worst I've seen so far this year('99). We know that Rutger Hauer can produce magic to the big screen(or TV), but here he is far from his best form and suddenly disappears from the movie with no explanation whatsoever!? If you like experimental movies regarding the Frankenstein story, you might find this movie interesting, but at least I could not find many positive elements in Roger Avary's TV movie.

SciFi with little Sci but some very good Fi

[david-duncan-1 · 7/10 · 9 August 2008]

All the science in this science fiction tale is of the ludicrously pseudo sort, but it is stylish, well-acted entertainment. Will Wheaton, Rutger Hauer and Ron Perlman all give the excellent performances that one expects of them. Performances by the rest of the cast are more variable -- with some very good and some a bit over the top hammy. In terms of plot, the first half of the movie is quite original and makes the best of its obviously limited budget. Some parts of the second half are more trite and predictable but still stylishly done and ornamented by Will Wheaton's excellent performance. The special effects are minimal, the production design is a striking exercise in minimalism, and the musical score is quite good without being obtrusive. It is no SF classic, but it is both entertaining and thought provoking.

what a way to spin your Oscar glory! An obscure find that is not all unworthy

[Quinoa1984 · 6/10 · 13 December 2019]

I have an uncanny sort of respect for this one. Think about it for a moment: Roger Avary just found a spot on his mantelpiece for his Academy Award for writing one of the pop culture staples of the post-modern American cinema (or who knows where), and the next thing he signs on for (who knows how it generated but I'll imagine he pitched it) is to write and direct a weird-ass science fiction movie - the first original release for the Sci-Fi Channel no less - about a "creative" doctor who stitches together a man (OR IS IT? didn't mean to mis-gender) a-new out of 80 parts from both sexes, and then the new being named Lazarus starts to have dreams/realizes the visions of who he/she/it used to be. It takes some balls to commit to that - and by that, I mean a vision that is pretty much schlock. I am sorry if you were wondering if this was legitimately good, but I'm not sure if that's the case. Oh, Wil Wheaton and to an extent Rutger Hauer are committed to these characters, and there's a decent supporting role for the always-dependable Ron Perlman. But this has certain design elements that are familiar for sci-fi buffs - like an all-acrid all-white set ala THX-1138, and a... actually, I don't know what that GIANT EYEBALL is all about, but it is absolutely, stunningly funny and bizarre - and the dialog is stuffed with either exposition or inner-ideas and 'insights' from Lazarus and the other female doctor that he suddenly takes a liking to, and there's *more* to that.

The point is, this does have a not-terrible idea to kick it all off, which is an updated, horror-tinged but not all-the-way horror Frankenstein riff (if it isn't obvious enough, at one point Lazarus reads Frankenstein the book, which.... hey, Johnny 5 did that in Short Circuit 2, RIP OFF!) It also goes for some hallucinatory details, some that are fun for enjoying the dated value of the special effects and tomandandy techno score, and details like that 'Chemical Weapons' door sign (I still can't get over that). At the same time, this is also kind of messy by nature of the fact that Hauer (RIP) eventually during the production decided he was bored or didn't like it or who knows, and kind of just leaves more or less about halfway through. He is a major part of the story though, and the movie loses something without him in it more (when he is there, he is trying... ish, if not seeming to dig his teeth in like on a Buffy the Vampire Slayer level). What makes it schlock ultimately is that Avary a) doesn't seem to have much of a budget to work with, aside from the Tom Savini make-up and (which is terrific, goes without saying), and a couple of car crashes that are certainly something else, and b) it really starts to become more rote as it goes along in its second half. I was at first really keyed in to, you know, a moment where Lazarus flings a bar-bell at the floating giant eyeball and it falls to the ground and deflates after being pierced (and yes, I just wrote that sentence), but it devolves into the same old 'the Creation Is Out of Control We Need to Stop it But OMG it's Taken Control On Its Own AAH' story that has cropped up over and over. And, frankly, some of the dialog (ok, a lot) is more laughable than it is clever.

All of this said, Mr. Stitch feels like something that doesn't get looked at or talked about anymore, which is strange considering its history, who made it and who's in it (Taylor Negron has a fun supporting turn too), and it's the kind of obscure 90's work that probably could be unearthed by someone or some company (looking at you, Shout Factory?) It has some dull spots, but is overall a solid piece of so-crap-it's-a-gas material, and certainly a cut above what Sci-Fi has put out in the years since.

An excellent cautionary tale

[kel_har · 10/10 · 19 November 2000]

This is an intense, eerie, and hypnotic science fiction thriller. The "Lazarus" character is compelling, heroic, and sympathetic, as portrayed convincingly by Wil Wheaton. The cast, the direction, and the music were great and important in telling this story. Roger Avary has created a modern-day Frankenstein-esque tale. Highly recommended!

I changed the channel

[Goon-2 · 5 March 1999]

I kept it on for as long as I could, but after awhile this movie really began to bother me, so finally I turned it off. NOT one of Rutger Hauer's best films, or probably anybody involved best films by a long shot.

It's not like I was expecting a great movie. I admit, it was only the presence of Rutger Hauer and my knowlege of some bad blood on the set that made me want to watch this in the first place. The story, which is somewhat like Frankenstein, is about a young man (Wil Wheaton) who is patched together from various cadevers by an odd reclusive type (Hauer). The young man is horrifying in appearance, but brilliant in knowlege. The old man also possesses a great amount of knowledge, so he knows enough to keep his creation secluded into an odd building where everything is white. I think the white somehow represented a sign of religion, which was pointlessly made to look all bad, and like science was the key. That, along with the fact that Hauer "suddenly having to go away" (and never coming back) quite quickly played major factors in my turning it. I don't care for Wil Wheaton nearly enough to watch him by himself, and what was he supposed to DO for the rest of the movie without Hauer? I did not feel like finding out.

Note: Hauer "suddenly had to go away" because director Roger Avery asked him to leave the set...permanently. It seems that he and much of the cast were at odds with the rest of the crew. (maybe he didn't like the ridiculous view the film took on religion). Editing problems were also supposed to be a problem for this film. Those could be two reasons as to why it turned out so...oddly.

Odd but beautiful B sci-fi

[Alphaszone · 9/10 · 6 December 2001]

I happened across this while browsing through the older sci-fi releases in a video store and decided to check it out because it featured Rutger Hauer and Wil Wheaton, two actors I enjoy. The first half of the movie is excellent with it's simple backgrounds and is driven by excellent dialogue and great acting (except by Nia Peeples who I found to be a bit flat and uninteresting). During the latter part though the story began to lose my interest and it became more obvious that this was a low budget movie. The story which is basically a modern updating of Frankenstein was a good idea in theory and I think that they got a lot of it right but they really needed to take it in a different direction with the ending. Still, for what it is it's worth watching at least once if only for Rutger, Wil, or some of the great dialogue.

a different sci-fi TV movie

[dromasca · 8/10 · 24 December 1999]

I liked the first part of the movie, with the all-white background. Well played characters and quite smart dialogs make it different. The second part rather falls in the low cost sci-fi action, but one will remember the production for the ambience, the well defined characters and the good acting.

The worst TV movie I've ever seen

[dunkel_berg25 · 22 July 2002]

I rented this TV movie cause it had Rutger Hauer in it. I never imagined I was renting something soooo bad. The amount of flaws this movie has wouldn't fit on a grocery list. I felt sorry for Hauer, seeing him so fat and old, starring on a movie that was so bad. I think he ran away from making this movie, after seeing how bad it was turning out to be(we can only see Hauer on the first minutes of film, afterwards, he simply disappear). I know this film has had its amount of bad critics, but it is just that bad. A 0.5 out of 10.

Objectively one of the best movies ever!

[tsopa9 · 10/10 · 21 December 2006]

Hey everybody! I am Tsopa and I have been trying to find the TomandAndy's soundtrack for Mr.Stitch in all countries I've been for many years, but all in vain. Please help me. If you obtain any information about some places, sites, shops or persons who could help, give them my e mail address: [e-mail] I would really appreciate it; you'd just make me incredibly happy! Thak you. Also I'd like to socialize with the people who like the film and the musical project. I've travel-led a lot, but I can tell you, that there are not many people who ever heard anything about Mr Stitch movie, therefore I'm hoping to find someone who doesn't mind to keep in touch with me.

Who gave the greenlight on this?

[TToadvine · 5 January 2002]

How they were able to attain funding to produce this..uh..movie, has to be more of a feat than the production itself.

I'm so glad to see Wil Wheaton didn't leave Star Trek: The Next Generation without such promising projects awaiting him.

Wheaton plays an androgenous, Palamino-skinned Frankenstein's Monster with amnesia, who after reading one of several books, the Bible, names himself Lazarus.

With huge vacant lab rooms, filmed using more lens gauze than Penthouse, an eventual laboratory breakout, and a crazy road trip(by the way, when did he take the 'Mad Max' driving course), 'Stitch' can only leave you asking one question? Ron Perlman had plenty of time post-"Beauty and the Beast", but what was Taylor Negron thinking?

Wanted to fall asleep but couldn't

[bobafett_h · 16 January 2004]

This is without doubt one of the worst films I have ever seen. I saw it at a friend's birthday party where someone had recommended it as being a good film.

Mr Stitch was so boring that I even found the opening credits boring! The rest of the film was no better. The first two thirds of it took place in this enormous white room without walls. The story seemed to drag on an awful lot and took forever to get to the point of the story which it didn't really appear to have much of.

The bizarre looking Frankenstein like creation continued to have memories which were left in the body parts that had come from the people who were dug up in order to build this prototype super soldier for the military. It was difficult trying to find a reason to stay awake, but the person who recommended it kept saying "a good bit was coming up soon". It never did.

I have heard that this film won a Golden Turkey award for the most boring film of all time. An award which is most deserving. The only notable parts of the movie with any entertainment value at all are the observation eyeball and the smoke cloud in the shape of a skull.

Watch it if you suffer from insomnia.

interesting experiment?

[Batdad · 22 September 1999]

This film is an interesting little experiment: lots of bright white light framing images that linger for the camera, the Frankenstein story updated as an anti-war morality tale. Rutger Hauer chews the scenery a bit as the update of Dr. Frankenstein, and the generic evil general is all cartoon; still, Wil Wheaton as Lazarus, the creation, and Nia Peeples as his sympathetic caretaker/tutor, are worth watching. (Taylor Negron also makes an appearance as a slimy cohort who gets his just reward--his specialty.) Not a big budget affair, but not a complete waste of time, either, if you like quirky sci-fi fantasy.

Excellent movie, at least not a violent one

[wolverin-3 · 11 August 1999]

I think the movie was excellent, it was not violent for starters compared to other recent movies.

Wheaton plays the part of a man who has been 'stitched' together like humpty dumpty, well from the remains of many dead persons. The problem starts when he starts remembering how they died and lots of other memories they had. Nia Peeples is great in the movie, as is Wheaton.

The movie reminds us, not to play with nature, not to "play God" with life. What God creates we shouldn't manipulate for our own egoistical interest such as creating super-soldiers which was what the movie was about.

Great sci-fi movie, unfortunately it was shown at 1.30am last night on tv!

some of the best dialogue ever heard

[spaceace-7 · 5 August 1999]

yes, it's true. whatever flaws this movie has, it deserves to be seen because of its incredibly imaginative dialogue. it really does. ...