Reviews written by registered user
|5 reviews in total|
As time-traveling stories go, this one's better than average. The writers
did a decent job trying to account for all the inevitable paradoxes, and
story itself is decently paced and involving.
Casper Van Dien plays Tom Merrick, an ex-TV-journalist trying to put his life back together after an accident cost his crew their lives and him his job. He goes to work as a reporter for a local tabloid, and while investigating disasters of the 20th century, he stumbles upon an incredible coincidence; pictures taken at 3 disasters several decades apart include what appears to be the same man. Catherine Bell plays Elizabeth Wintern, another worker at the tabloid who gets caught up in Merrick's quest to find out who this man is. Merrick and Wintern eventually learn that a company in the future is offering entertainment packages, allowing people to go back in time and witness history's greatest disasters... including some that haven't happened yet as far as Merrick and Wintern are concerned. Merrick takes it upon himself to stop these impending disasters, and finds himself pursued by both "temporal security agents" who are trying to keep their timeline intact, and by local police who think Merrick has planned these events himself.
Don't take my compliments at face value; the movie is far from perfect. There are several plot holes and gloss-overs. I found the writers' ideas on how time travel works to be inconsistent in places. Martin Sheen is completely wasted in his role, having all of maybe 5 minutes of screen time. Finally, in many places I began wondering who I should really root for. Merrick is supposed to be the hero of the movie, trying to keep these "future" disasters from occurring, but at the same time, I could sympathize with the people from the future trying to stop him, especially after I learned what Merrick's actions cause to the future population.
Pitfalls aside, this is an engaging, well-acted movie that will make you think about the morality of time travel. A very solid 6 out of 10.
Maybe I'm not high-brow enough to truly appreciate this movie, but I
honestly found it boring. It didn't help that I had little sympathy for
"hero." We're supposed to feel sorry for a man who willingly commits
adultery? I guess so, but I just couldn't do it.
Overall, I've sat through worse 3-hour epics, but I've also sat through much better ones.
There are two rules that must be followed to make a good disaster
1. Make sure the audience has at least a good idea of whether or not disaster will strike, so they know if they should be cheering or crying.
2. When disaster does strike, make sure there's plenty of movie left over to effectively deal with the aftermath.
Without revealing too much plot, 'Atomic Train' breaks these rules, making it a depressing and ultimately pointless disaster flick. At least you can laugh at the special effects, which look horribly cheap even for a TV production.
Firestarter is one of those movies that bores critics and often appears as
weekend or late night filler on TV. Even so, the movie does have its
moments. Give it a chance, and Firestarter will grow on
Fans of the X Files will be at home with the movie's plot about an experimental drug given to 60s college students by a secret government agency, known as The Shop. Two of the students (portrayed by David Keith and Heather Locklear) eventually marry and a child is born; a "firestarter" (played by Drew Barrymore) who can set anything ablaze with just one angry thought. Martin Sheen and George C. Scott round out the cast as heads of The Shop, who are now bent on capturing the girl and harnessing her power as a weapon, not to mention using her as a way to get funding for more experiments.
The acting and dialogue certainly aren't award-winning, but they do carry the movie along. The music, written and performed by Tangerine Dream, is perfectly suited to the movie, and in my opinion is some of Tangerine Dream's best work. The special effects are convincing, and at times, chilling. Readers of Stephen King's best-selling novel will be happy to know that this movie is, for the most part, faithful to his original story, despite a rather clipped ending.
In all, if you have a taste for conspiracy thrillers with a healthy dose of science fiction thrown in, you'll like this one, though it probably won't be your favorite.
This is an okay film if you're looking for something to keep the kiddies
occupied for 70 minutes. For fans of the original 'Secret of NIMH',
however, this movie is absolute drivel. No wonder Don Bluth doesn't believe
in making sequels.
I wonder if the producers of this movie forgot that NIMH is an actual institution, and one that could sue them for the utterly stupid portrayal NIMH received in this movie.
For a decent NIMH sequel, read Jane Leslie Conly's 'Racso and the Rats of NIMH' instead. While still not as good as the original story (and it's meant to follow the first book, not the movie), Conly's effort is way better than this.