Cold Mountain.

Review #1536: Cold Mountain.

Cast: 
Jude Law (William "W. P." Inman), Nicole Kidman (Ada Monroe), Renée Zellweger (Ruby Thewes), Eileen Atkins (Maddy), Brendan Gleeson (Stobrod Thewes), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Reverend Solomon Veasey), Natalie Portman (Sara), Giovanni Ribisi (Junior), Donald Sutherland (Reverend Monroe), Ray Winstone (Teague), Kathy Baker (Sally Swanger), James Gammon (Esco Swanger), Charlie Hunnam (Bosie), Jack White (Georgia), and Ethan Suplee (Pangle) Written and Directed by Anthony Minghella.

Review: 
"I had never thought of myself as a director and found out that I was not. I am a writer who was able to direct the films that I write."

Writers matter to a good film, particularly ones that happen to direct it as well. Minghella had aspirations of playing music prior to going to the University of Hull, playing in a couple of bands at keyboard that credited writing songs as a precursor to writing plays (once stating that he saw his early plays as "being a format for music"). His first film came at the age of 24 that was filmed in his native Isle of Wight in under three weeks with A Little Like Drowning (1978). His studies in drama led to graduation from there before attempting to study for a doctoral thesis (with his big influence as a writer being Samuel Beckett) alongside lecturing at the school for a few years. He moved himself to writing for television for the BBC and ITV alongside doing his own plays and adaptations by the 1980s, which did receive notice, although it was Truly, Madly, Deeply (1990) that proved important, since it went from being made initially for television to being given a theatrical release that resulted in praise. His time spent adapting The English Patient to film in 1996 resulted in tremendous audience and critical favor. Before his untimely death in 2008, Minghella directed seven features while also serving as producer for several other films and doing work on the board for the British Film Institute.

This was Minghella's sixth feature film, and it is an adaptation of the 1997 novel of the same name by Charles Frazier, who loosely based it off the service of William P. Inman, a member of the 25th Infantry Regiment in North Carolina that Frazier has stated is his great-grand uncle. There have been quite a few war romance films that try to carry a torrid romance into an odyssey where the time spent together is just more lasting than the segments involving war (with the despair of said war being right there as well). This is basically right in the middle of quality in terms of epics, handling itself well in style and occasional moments of inspiration that cloud over its expected glacial pace and decent splitting of narratives that is best suited for seeing its supporting characters from time to time in the fields of North Carolina (or more specifically, Romania) for 154 minutes. I wish I liked the film enough to really call it good, but I at least get why it could prove more satisfying for those who seek it out. Law does just fine with a capable element of conviction in keeping level with evoking some level of quiet range that handles courtship and war just fine. Kidman, handling the other storyline of a film that needs to handle yearning alongside farm trouble, does just alright in tender care for drama that basically works out decent chemistry with Law in that we do generally await to see what happens next. Zellweger however proves the most interesting in generating a resourceful performance that shows some humor alongside resilience despite only showing up in the movie an hour into obviously dire proceedings. Gleeson provides a warm presence to otherwise dour times, while Hoffman and Portman make momentary appearances and do fine with they need to run with, while others such as Winstone seem really lacking in time needed. Honestly, while I do note the fact that there are quite a few films that can utilize two-and-a-half-hours for well effect and the fair performances here, I just only see a decent movie that seems a bit cold to me in being anything other than just careful in treading the waters of what you might already know about brutal wars and romances that are just too much for anyone to stay put and so on and so forth. It reminds me of what a good copy of a lost painting done from fairly accurate recollection - on the surface it looks nice and could probably pass for a classic, but if you look at it a little bit more you just might see it as just fine. In any case, it sweeps the board with fair flourish that will entertain those looking for what it yearns to show in passion and style that will win admirers in the art of patience or for its particular brand of telling said story more than those who don't find it as well-meaning.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Review #1528: A.I. Artificial Intelligence.

Cast: 
Haley Joel Osment (David), Jude Law (Gigolo Joe), Frances O'Connor (Monica Swinton), Sam Robards (Henry Swinton), Jake Thomas (Martin Swinton), William Hurt (Professor Allen Hobby), Brendan Gleeson (Lord Johnson-Johnson), with Jack Angel (Teddy), Robin Williams (Dr. Know), Ben Kingsley (Specialist), Meryl Streep (Blue Fairy), and Chris Rock (Comedian Robot) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, #1305 - Catch Me If You Can, #1478 - The Color Purple, and #1520 - Saving Private Ryan)

Review: 
"While there was divisiveness when A.I. came out, I felt that I had achieved Stanley’s wishes, or goals."

This was most definitely a film I anticipated and feared ever watching. On the one hand, it has sensibilities of two great directors mixed into one prolonged experience both in length and the time it took to actually develop it to the screen. For starters, the film is an adaptation of the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss, written originally in 1969. The original work included just four characters (David, his parents, and Teddy), which talked about the doubts of a boy's existence and what is real while his "parents" wait for the chance to have their own child. Stanley Kubrick had acquired the rights to the story by the 1970s. An array of writers would come and go in writing/consulting a script for Kubrick, which included Aldiss, Bob Shaw, Ian Watson and Sara Maitland, with Kubrick treating the soon-enormous script as resembling The Adventures of Pinocchio. One key thing that stopped progression of getting pre-production going was a perception by Kubrick that effects-work had to evolve enough to suit what he wanted (the release of Jurassic Park helped spur the idea of potentially doing the film again, but Kubrick ultimately retained focus on what ended up being his last project, Eyes Wide Shut in 1999). In the middle of all that searching for the right tone, Steven Spielberg had been approached by Kubrick to direct it, and it was after Kubrick's death in 1999 that led Christiane Kubrick to approach Spielberg to take on the project; Spielberg would develop a screenplay based on the story done by Watson, with the most notable aspect being the "Flesh Fair" sequence.

The ambition shown here in bringing such a project like this to life is admirable, regardless of how the final result turns out. It is a decent film, for better or worse. It has some of the edge needed when it comes to a visual level that makes an interesting curiosity that may perhaps inspire some thought about its deeper implications involving machines, that much is for sure. And yet there is just something about it that seems hollow when it comes to being consistently interesting in actually springing a story that really makes care all the way forward, which combines with a quiet ending that really seems to try to cover too many bases without truly deserving it. In other words, it is a fine movie, but I can't say I really, really liked it enough to justify 146 minutes of runtime, where it seems more clinical verging on silly than properly bleak and innovative, which basically means you get the decent but not perfect writings of two visionaries. Osment does just fine when it comes to a really tough task: a robot boy built to love, complete with an enduring spirit and robotic actions that carry this film as much as he can in unblinking fashion that will either lead to great heights or meandering. Law does fine, amusing in the manner of trickery to go along with the other side of what makes Mecha made to love. O'Connor and Robards don't really do as well, strangely enough, since they really don't help the first half seem that involving. Evidently the 22nd century has led to parents and children made out of wooden acting, where a voice of a teddy bear has more charm in comparison. Hurt does do a fine job, but he is gravelly underused, having basically just two scenes in the whole (meaningful in terms of hammering in the whole aspects of a robot child yes, but still). Williams is funny in his one scene to shine in exposition.

I really just wish I enjoyed this more, because there certainly are bits and pieces that seem suited for greatness that get slogged out of enjoyment. At least the original author Aldiss thought it was "inventive, intriguing, involving film", so to have a film that at least doesn't make the author mad is okay by me. For a story originally just about the plight of parents who struggle with loving a robot child, it sure is strange to have a film go from that to a "Flesh Fair" involving beating down old robots and a quest to become a real boy as Pinocchio with mommy issues. In a future that has cultivated the flooding of New York and had to rebuild itself with exploiting robots, why should it be surprising that at some point in time someone wanted to make a robot that loves you - basically this is the story of an advanced robotic pet looking for a way for their master to come back. The "Flesh Fair" sequence is in some way the make-it-or-break-it sequence - either it will help the film gather depth in the underbelly of robot use, or it will seem a bit too much for its own good. I'm fine with it, but it just seems so jarring when compared to the first half. I appreciate the look of the film, which does fine with featuring the future with some decent robotic effects, although its last trick for the end is a bit unwieldy. And then of course there is that ending, one that tries to resolve the pursuit for the "Blue Fairy" with a half-measure for a fable, as his plight for chasing down this delusion is thought of as like a human's ability to chase down their dreams (I...suppose). Keep in mind, this was the ending devised by Kubrick (not Spielberg), so it only goes to show that sometimes you just can't please everyone when it comes to resolutions. The setup to its little ending was ridiculous enough (because the odds of making a robot into a boy are pretty much nil, so either I expected him to wither away or give up), and the payoff is just an eye-roller more than a tear-jerker when it comes to meaningful science fiction. It is quite possible a re-viewing would help in seeing the layers beneath a vaguely provocative film, but honestly that really seems like a tall order - why not just spend time watching a better movie again instead? If one wants to compare and match, if I want a better Kubrick sci-fi time, I'll pick 2001: A Space Odyssey, and if I want a better Spielberg sci-fi time, I'll pick E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. What we have here is a film that is too cloying and too much for its own good to really become something other than a parable gone awry. I am glad that I saw the film in curiosity for measurement as a film of the 21st century, even if it is ultimately just a decent experience in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

Review #1273: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

Cast: 
Jude Law (Joseph Sullivan/Sky Captain), Gwyneth Paltrow (Polly Perkins), Angelina Jolie (Commander Francesca "Franky" Cook), Giovanni Ribisi (Dex), Michael Gambon (Editor Paley), Omid Djalili (Kaji), Bai Ling (The Mysterious Woman), Julian Curry (Dr. Jorge Vargas), Trevor Baxter (Dr. Walter Jennings), Peter Law (Dr. Kessler), and Laurence Olivier (Dr. Totenkopf) Written and Directed by Kerry Conran.

Review: 
Influences can be a wonderful thing. On the one hand, the film takes inspiration from films/comics of the 1930s like Flash Gordon, but on the other hand it also has inspiration from designers of the 1939 World's Fair like Norman Bel Geddes. A decade before the film's release, Conran had started work on making a teaser trailer for his idea in his living room with a bluescreen, spending four years on the project. Eventually, there was enough interest to make the film come to life, albeit as an independent film with plenty of producers for $70 million (or at least that is the reported figure for it, but regardless the film was not a success with audiences upon release). There are numerous things to be said for the film when it comes to its effects, since it is mostly done on a digital backlot. If anything shines, it is likely the digital artists and the crew tasked with making this world come alive. This is a film being sketched out via storyboards (hand-drawn) to be re-created as an 3D animatic by computer. This is a sibling type of contribution, with Kerry serving as writer and director, his brother Kevin serving as concept artist, production designer, and costume designer while his sister Kirsten served as art director. I can certainly applaud the efforts done here for a film that is very ambitious but also a pretty average one. It isn't a laughable experience, in part because one does find some time to gaze at what is going on around the actors, such as giant robots, sky ships, and so on. There is certainly a wonderful look present here that springs to mind the styles of the past that even springs to the characters, which can be hit-and-miss. The story certainly seems like a blueprint for the modern movie era, where one can make a bunch of references that try to distract from its own familiar story; it at least isn't a self-aggrandizing kind of experience, goofy yet friendly to sit through its 106 minutes. Law is up to some of the tasks associated with an adventurer lead, having some charm that comes with the territory that makes him somewhat interesting to go around with. Perhaps the implied history he has with Paltrow's character should've been shown more (as opposed to sprinkling scenes where they talk about it throughout), since they barely have any kind of chemistry with each other. One could just describe their scenes as aloof, as if I need reasons for a reporter to come along to an investigation about missing scientists and giant robots that steal stuff. Paltrow is just okay. She is playing a mildly interesting but familiar type that she makes come out in bits and pieces.  It's amusing how mild these two are when it actually would be interesting to see the others more, such as a lingo-spewing, eye-patch wearing Jolie that proves useful for the five (or so) minutes she shows up, or the robot assassin in Ling that never speaks, or even just Ribisi with talking the tech of this odd world. One wonders what to say about the digitized appearance of Olivier (who had died in 1989) into the movie to serve as a hologram of someone who had (are you ready for this) died decades earlier. So yes, he is used to essentially play a ghost of a mad man, which is pretty amusing, really. It just means that there is no real villain to speak of, since all the other adversaries are just robots, all tasked to do a dastardly plan like this. Sometimes you really need a cackling over-the-top villain. I suppose at the end of the day one has to wonder if the film is worth spending time with. Does it serve as a fine experience with plenty of distractions fitting for sci-fi action/adventure films? In my mind, I shrug my shoulders and leave it up to you. Sometimes it proves good to say a movie is "fine", sometimes it doesn't. I guess that this works out in the movie's favor, playing well as a curiosity with mild expectations that won't be forgotten too hard among other sci-fi adventure films.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Captain Marvel.

Review #1200: Captain Marvel.

Cast: 
Brie Larson (Carol Danvers / Vers / Captain Marvel), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Ben Mendelsohn (Talos / Keller), Djimon Hounsou (Korath), Lee Pace (Ronan the Accuser), Lashana Lynch (Maria Rambeau), Gemma Chan (Minn-Erva), Annette Bening (Supreme Intelligence / Mar-Vell / Dr. Wendy Lawson), Clark Gregg (Phil Coulson), and Jude Law (Yon-Rogg) Directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck.

Review: 
There have now been 21 films produced by Marvel Studios that is part of their cinematic universe, for which they have managed to set stages for the rise of numerous heroes for the past decade. Just as the era seems to possibly reach its peak with the final Avengers film comes another hero to join the fray, barely a month before said release. The film has certainly taken its time to get to the finish line, moving from an initial script done in 2013 to eventually enlisting a director/writer duo in Fleck and Boden in 2017, who had previously done films such as Mississippi Grind (2015) along with work on television programs. How many times can one make a superhero origin movie full of effects and action held together through a formula that seems as familiar as ever? I find myself liking these type of films just fine, but there is likely a point where the product doesn't resonate as entertainment, and it will likely be when the story and themes can't be held up from its main hero, when one just doesn't care about the stakes. I don't usually re-watch films often, and I can't particularly say that I really go back to these comic book films too much either (regardless of what brand is behind it). Perhaps it would be best to say that while I did find the film to be just fine, I would hope that a future installment manages to give its lead character a bit more conflict, particularly with its main threat.

Granted, there is plenty of galactic action to go around, but it doesn't have as many compelling levels as it probably should. There isn't a bad performance in the bunch, with Larson, Jackson, and Mendelsohn being keys to giving the film a steady balance. Larson does seem at first to be like a blank slate to fill details in gradually, which goes okay. As is the case with most heroes, it is nice to see her put a suit on and beat some enemies, even if the story that surrounds her is just alright for the course. It is nice to see Jackson (albeit with some digitally de-ageing that takes some time to get used to) deliver some enjoyment and a few laughs in a part that feels just fine for a buddy cop movie. Mendelsohn is also fairly amusing to stick around with, particularly when in his human disguise. The other members of the cast are okay, although they don't feel too particularly developed with much to do, such as Law or Bening. At least the 90s references are amusing without being obnoxiously self-aware. Comparing the film to more recent films of its ilk (such as Wonder Woman or Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, for example) does tend to make the film seem a bit average. It is surprising to see how many films can persist on in showing people with their newly found heroic powers and the responsibility that comes with it - some do better with showing conflict and adventure than others. The film takes its 124 minute run-time and runs just fine with showing spectacle while trying to make sure its story has a few connections for its audiences without gasping for relevance, which delivers decent results. It may not be unique with its motivations (or its character types), but it sure pushes itself amiably. This one will check the boxes for people already in line for these kind of movies, and while it may not be as interesting as it could have been (in terms of its story and pace), it is at least something you can take without many regrets.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Review #1182: Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events.

Cast: 
Jim Carrey (Count Olaf), Liam Aiken (Klaus Baudelaire), Emily Browning (Violet Baudelaire), Kara and Shelby Hoffman (Sunny Baudelaire), Jude Law (Lemony Snicket), Timothy Spall (Mr. Poe), Billy Connolly (Dr. Montgomery), Meryl Streep (Josephine Anwhistle), Catherine O'Hara (Justice Strauss), and Cedric the Entertainer (the Constable) Directed by Brad Silberling (#267 - Casper)

Review: 
When it comes time to turn books into film, I suppose the best ones to use are the ones meant for children, particularly ones with entertaining qualities that will give plenty for the audience to go for - this book series certainly has some of that, along with a defining dark mysterious feel throughout the thirteen book series done by Daniel Handler (under the pen name Lemony Snicket). With so many books to adapt, it's pretty easy to see why one would combine the first three books (named The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, and The Wide Window) when making a feature film, although perhaps the best way to adapt these books would be through television (which occurred a decade later). The film obviously intends to replicate the dark style of the series with its look, using only a small range of colors (such as green or black) while being filmed on sound-stages, which certainly is an interesting way to give the film something to stick out. It certainly reminds me of a Tim Burton film with its look, and at one point he was considered to direct the feature (along with Barry Sonnenfeld) - in fact, Handler was hired to write a script for the film, but setbacks (such as concerns over the budget, which ultimately was over $140 million) and delays led to an eventual change from Handler (who had done numerous drafts) to Robert Gordon for the screenplay.

With all of that in mind, the film that comes from it is an okay product that reaches entertainment level more often than not, but it ultimately is a muddled movie that perhaps needed a bit more focus to really reach its full potential. It seems the film works best when it actually is trying to have a plot than with some of its offbeat characters. Honestly, the highlight of the movie is Carrey, who chews as much scenery as one could possibly do under makeup (done by Valli O'Reilly and Bill Corso, who ended up winning an Academy Award for it) without falling too much into self-parody, in part because he is pretty amusing with a good touch of sinister nature to him that keeps the film moving at times. Aiken and Browning are fairly decent, although I wonder if they would've been more interesting with further portrayals for more adaptations. Law is alright in the occasional moments that he chimes in with his voice. The adult characters (besides Carrey and Law) are each fairly silly, oblivious to the the plan of the villain (much like with how it worked with the books), but I feel that each don't really have the kind of presence to make them feel anything other than just okay, as if the episodic nature of the film makes the flow of the film a bit inconsistent, particularly with the end of the second story and the beginning of the third one (serving as the climax). At least the film seems to have a good touch of faithfulness to its source material, and it seems to work just fine at 108 minutes long, but it never really seems to be too comfortable with its tone, trying to do dark aspects with touches of humor that is okay at best. The style is nice and dandy, but the story perhaps needed something more. Perhaps if the film had inspired a desire to have further sequels (which did not come to pass despite being a moderate success), this one would've have came off a bit better, but as a whole this is just an okay if not too exceptional piece of entertainment, one that can be recommended for a fan curious for more from the series or perhaps someone wanting a bit of style within some mystery.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

eXistenZ.

Review #1127: eXistenZ.

Cast: 
Jennifer Jason Leigh (Allegra Geller), Jude Law (Ted Pikul), Ian Holm (Kiri Vinokur), Don McKellar (Yevgeny Nourish), Callum Keith Rennie (Hugo Carlaw), Sarah Polley (Merle), Christopher Eccleston (the Seminar Leader), Willem Dafoe (Gas), Robert A. Silverman (D'Arcy Nader), Oscar Hsu (Chinese Waiter), and Kris Lemche (Noel Dichter) Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future)

Review: 
Believe it or not, this review has been delayed quite significantly by roughly a week. It was supposed to be completed before the review of Legacy of Blood. However, I found that it was easier to come up with thoughts for the plethora of reviews that have come out in the past week. I hope that this review is satisfactory to the standards that I try to have for this show. 

What does it mean to live in reality? Particularly in our day and age, where virtual reality seems more than just a pipe dream? For something like this, a science fiction body horror film, eXistenZ likes to throw questions and gooey things at its audience, and it is the ways that it plays games with its viewer that help in seeing if the film actually succeeds in telling its intriguing ideas. It's a mind-game of a movie, filled with gooey imagery and a fairly game cast willing to showcase this weird world and its situations, and it isn't hard to see why this could be considered a cult classic. For me, it borders on the line of average, but there are aspects of the film that are fairly interesting, along with parts that aren't as bright. Undeniably, the best one to shine in this film is Leigh. She has a certain energy to her that has its shares of cynicism and intrigue (such as when talking about the plot) that makes her a person worth following, which makes sense even now with how people treat creators of things that certainly spring creativity of any kind - whether in technology or some other field.

The same can't be said as much for Law. Perhaps it is the nature of the character that makes him a dry one to follow (being a PR guy) that makes him not as interesting to go along with, although Law can prove decent at times at reacting to the weirdness that this film can verge itself into. Holm and McKeller prove okay, providing the kind of support you'd expect in a situation presented like this (if that makes sense, anyway). Dafoe proves a fine highlight for the time he is on screen, being the most interesting person playing off Leigh and Law for most of the film. This is a movie where people put squid-looking things in their lower back. In an age where people like wear big headsets to experience "VR", who can judge? People certainly love the creations that invite creativity and imagination, whether it blurs the line between fantasy and reality or not, much like how a filmmaker creates the world that encompasses a movie. The film moves at a casual pace in its 97 minute run-time, having a look and feel that plays against expectation that feels welcome in a sense. Where one might expect darkness and jargon, one finds a different sort, a weird energy of events and things that has a fine cinematography from Peter Suschitzky (who had done work on films such as The Empire Strikes Back and other previous Cronenberg films such since Dead Ringers in 1988) to go with it. The ending likes to twist itself with a sort of relish for trickery and mystery, and while I'm not the biggest fan of it, I will say it ends the film without turning it into a joke.

The best way to describe the film is to imagine a philosophy lecture with a professor that happens to have goo in its presentation. For a general crowd, it could prove frustrating, particularly if one doesn't have much patience for something that is suited for examination and discussion a bit more different than a usual talk about a general movie. It certainly isn't something like Tron or The Matrix, that's for sure. But if one takes the film and looks under the surface, I think they will find something that is worth the game it wants to play with the mind.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Rise of the Guardians.

Review #378: Rise of the Guardians.

Cast
Chris Pine (Jack Frost), Alec Baldwin (Santa Claus), Hugh Jackman (Easter Bunny), Isla Fisher (Tooth Fairy), Jude Law (Pitch Black/The Boogeyman), and Dakota Goyo (Jamie Bennett). Directed by Peter Ramsey.

Review
Before I begin, I'll mention that this was based off the book series by William Joyce, and this seems to be a trend for Dreamworks, making movies based off books (Shrek, Over the Hedge, though that was a comic strip and How to Train Your Dragon), and this seems to be working well, and I'm not going to lie, I like this film. Honestly, I didn't really expect too much from the film, I thought it would be a flick just for kids that didn't have too much. It managed to override the expectations. The casting works well, especially with Chris Pine and oddly enough, Alec Baldwin. The jokes work fine, but they don't form the base of the film, that's where the fantasy comes in, and the story works well enough to keep you interested in what's going on. The animation works well because it also keep the suspense going, conveying the story at a decent pace. For a 97 minute film, it keeps a fine pace, and it sets up the possibility for more, because...I like where this is going. That's what films sometimes do, making the viewer hungering for more because they know the story has only just begun, not just wanting a rehash. But then maybe that's just me. But still, this is a good film that entertains well and finishes well.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Gattaca.

Review #112: Gattaca.

Cast
Ethan Hawke (Vincent Anton Freeman/Jerome Eugene Morrow), Uma Thurman (Irene Cassini), Jude Law (Jerome Eugene Morrow), Loren Dean (Anton Freeman), Gore Vidal (Director Josef), Xander Berkeley (Dr. Lamar), Ernest Borgnine (Caesar) Directed by Andrew Niccol.

Review
The film is a delight to watch, as it's a smart film that makes you interested in the film rather than just be a science-fiction film. It raises questions and makes you wonder what would happen if we picked people because of genes rather then personality (Even if a sickened man goes to the one place different from Earth-Space) The acting is good, and the locations they use, especially the double helix staircase, is excellent. All in all, it's a good film to watch any day.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.