Robin-Tunney Movie Reviews

"The In-Laws" provides 90-plus minutes of pure, unadulterated imbecility. This ersatz farce is a remake of the 1979 hit starring Alan Arkin and Peter Falk - material which, if this were a perfect world, would have been left rotting in the bargain bin of your local video store where it belongs. Instead, writers Nat Mauldin and Ed Solomon and director Andrew Fleming have seen fit to remount it, this time with Michael Douglas as the CIA agent who's been too busy out saving the world to forge a meaningful relationship with his son, and Albert Brooks as the uptight, neurotic podiatrist who learns he has to "stop and smell the roses" and live life to the full. The paths of these two mismatched men cross when their children decide to get married.

"The In-Laws" makes the mistake common to so many "madcap" comedies: it believes that by keeping the action moving along at a breakneck pace, we somehow won't notice that there really isn't anything all that terribly funny going on. The film could have been a riotous take-off on inter-familial complications (like "Meet the Parents"), but instead it degenerates into an anachronistic and wearying spy-spoof with the characters forced again and again into ridiculous and preposterous slapstick situations. The actors do their best under the circumstances, but the non-stop, frantic dithering on the part of both Douglas and Brooks becomes rather tiring after awhile.

This is one wedding you will definitely not want to attend.

There was one laugh-out-loud scene but other than that, I did not find this movie to exciting or interesting. This movie more reminds me of "Meet the Parents" instead of the original In-laws that this movie was based on. The only thing better than the original was how they gave more attention to the children being married than the two in-laws.

The performance which I thought was good was Albert Brooks (I'm sorry, Douglas does not belong in comedy roles... when will Hollywood learn). He was fun to watch as a neurotic foot doctor learning how to live more fully thanks to the life style of Michael Douglas' character.

In the end, I would not recommend this movie. I'm sure I could have been doing something more productive during the length of this movie... like housework.

An "Odd Couple"-like premise, combined with a stellar cast, is most likely to make "The In-Laws" the runaway box-office blockbuster of the summer. The film's two main stars, Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks, whose roles play off one another extremely well, you'd think they acted together previously. Brooks' Felix character plays comic foil to Douglas's Oscar-type persona, which provides great spontaneous comedy. Steve Tobias (Douglas) is a rogue-like CIA agent, who is nonchalantly paired with one of Chicago's top podiatrists, Jerry Peyser (Brooks), who falls prey to Tobias's scheme, and Peyser is "recruited" as a "fait-accompli" into Tobias's plans. The result is a mulligan's stew of chaos, as our heroes are jettisoned to and fro, to France and back to the U.S.A. - creating many memorable moments along their crazy journey. The plot leaves behind many hilarious scenes in its wake. For instance, the scenes where Brooks' character is somewhat "paired" with a gay Frenchman (especially the one where Jerry Peyser is in the jacuzzi with him, and showing a rather portly backside is priceless. Another scene where both Peyser and Tobias are on top of the John Hancock Building is also of grandesque proportions, where they take a flying leap off Chicago's second tallest structure, all while getting a birds-eye view of the city at night, eventually landing next to the famous orange sculpture on State Street (which can also be seen in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", for those keeping tabs on movie trivia). These are just a few surprises, but there are others just waiting to be seen at your local theater. Although Michael Douglas's prior feature "It Runs In The Family" garnered only a lukewarm reception from moviegoers, "The In-Laws", is most likely to get Mr. Douglas the props he deserves, as this is sure to have cash registers ringing like mad at theaters around the country. So, take your in-laws (or your immediate family) to see these "In-Laws" today!

"The In-Laws" provides 90-plus minutes of pure, unadulterated imbecility. This ersatz farce is a remake of the 1979 hit starring Alan Arkin and Peter Falk - material which, if this were a perfect world, would have been left rotting in the bargain bin of your local video store where it belongs. Instead, writers Nat Mauldin and Ed Solomon and director Andrew Fleming have seen fit to remount it, this time with Michael Douglas as the CIA agent who's been too busy out saving the world to forge a meaningful relationship with his son, and Albert Brooks as the uptight, neurotic podiatrist who learns he has to "stop and smell the roses" and live life to the full. The paths of these two mismatched men cross when their children decide to get married.

"The In-Laws" makes the mistake common to so many "madcap" comedies: it believes that by keeping the action moving along at a breakneck pace, we somehow won't notice that there really isn't anything all that terribly funny going on. The film could have been a riotous take-off on inter-familial complications (like "Meet the Parents"), but instead it degenerates into an anachronistic and wearying spy-spoof with the characters forced again and again into ridiculous and preposterous slapstick situations. The actors do their best under the circumstances, but the non-stop, frantic dithering on the part of both Douglas and Brooks becomes rather tiring after awhile.

This is one wedding you will definitely not want to attend.

There was one laugh-out-loud scene but other than that, I did not find this movie to exciting or interesting. This movie more reminds me of "Meet the Parents" instead of the original In-laws that this movie was based on. The only thing better than the original was how they gave more attention to the children being married than the two in-laws.

The performance which I thought was good was Albert Brooks (I'm sorry, Douglas does not belong in comedy roles... when will Hollywood learn). He was fun to watch as a neurotic foot doctor learning how to live more fully thanks to the life style of Michael Douglas' character.

In the end, I would not recommend this movie. I'm sure I could have been doing something more productive during the length of this movie... like housework.

An "Odd Couple"-like premise, combined with a stellar cast, is most likely to make "The In-Laws" the runaway box-office blockbuster of the summer. The film's two main stars, Michael Douglas and Albert Brooks, whose roles play off one another extremely well, you'd think they acted together previously. Brooks' Felix character plays comic foil to Douglas's Oscar-type persona, which provides great spontaneous comedy. Steve Tobias (Douglas) is a rogue-like CIA agent, who is nonchalantly paired with one of Chicago's top podiatrists, Jerry Peyser (Brooks), who falls prey to Tobias's scheme, and Peyser is "recruited" as a "fait-accompli" into Tobias's plans. The result is a mulligan's stew of chaos, as our heroes are jettisoned to and fro, to France and back to the U.S.A. - creating many memorable moments along their crazy journey. The plot leaves behind many hilarious scenes in its wake. For instance, the scenes where Brooks' character is somewhat "paired" with a gay Frenchman (especially the one where Jerry Peyser is in the jacuzzi with him, and showing a rather portly backside is priceless. Another scene where both Peyser and Tobias are on top of the John Hancock Building is also of grandesque proportions, where they take a flying leap off Chicago's second tallest structure, all while getting a birds-eye view of the city at night, eventually landing next to the famous orange sculpture on State Street (which can also be seen in "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", for those keeping tabs on movie trivia). These are just a few surprises, but there are others just waiting to be seen at your local theater. Although Michael Douglas's prior feature "It Runs In The Family" garnered only a lukewarm reception from moviegoers, "The In-Laws", is most likely to get Mr. Douglas the props he deserves, as this is sure to have cash registers ringing like mad at theaters around the country. So, take your in-laws (or your immediate family) to see these "In-Laws" today!

One's opinion of a movie after you've seen it is as much influenced by your expectations going in as it is by the actual worth of the movie. "Vertical Limit" is an excellent example of this. Going in I expected this to be a completely worthless movie. Disaster movies are certainly not my favorite genre and are even less dull than good guy versus bad guy shoot 'em up films. While "Vertical Limit" certainly won't win any awards, it was not nearly as bad as I anticipated.

"Vertical Limit"'s story revolves around Peter and Annie Garrett, played by Chris O'Donnell and Robin Tunney respectively. The Garretts are siblings with a background in climbing. On a climb out west an accident occurs which forces Peter to cut the rope holding his father to save himself and his sister. We flash forward several years to Pakistan where Peter has become a photographer for "National Geographic". He hasn't done any climbing since his father's death.

Annie in the meantime has garnered many accolades for her climbing achievements and has agreed to assist a wealthy businessman named Elliot Vaughn (Bill Paxton) to the top of K2, the second tallest mountain in the world. Vaughn has a promotional tie-in with his climb. He must get to the top at all costs.

A storm rolls in during the climb and three of the climbers; Annie, Vaughn, and Tom McLaren (Nicholas Lea); become trapped on the mountain by an avalanche. Peter decides to get up a rescue effort to save his sister. He manages to round up five other climbers including the reclusive Montgomery Wick (Scott Glenn) who lives on the moutain while searching for his dead wife's body. She was killed while leading another expedition of which Vaughn was a member. Wick suspects that Vaughn has had something to do with his wife's death.

From here the movie descends into the predictable "overcoming one disaster after another" scenario familiar to this genre. For some reason though, most of the action in "Vertical Limit" doesn't seemed contrived or hokey, which often happens with these films. Perhaps it's because I myself am not a climber and not familiar with the conditions often faced by such people; but, when I saw a similar movie named "Cliffhanger", it did seem contrived and hokey so I don't think this is the reason.

I'm not what you would call a fan of O'Donnell. I don't think he's a bad actor but he certainly is not going to win an Oscar any time soon. However, I think his tendency for understatement works well in this film. He allows the scenery and action sequences to speak for themselves while he allows the action to take him along. He doesn't give his lines like they are Shakespearean in origin but he does give them the weight of importance to keep you from laughing at them. Perhaps O'Donnell has found his niche with this movie.

The majority of the action and especially the climax of the movie were largely predictable. However, that does not really detract from "Vertical Limit". It may have been my low expectations coming in but I give this disaster flick a passing grade.

I loved Vertical Limit! I think all the actors, especially Chris O'Donnell, Robin Tunney, and Bill Paxton, did a terrific job playing their parts. I was very impressed with the music, the cinematography, the stunts, and the acting. There were a few things that were a bit unrealistic, like the nytro. Wouldn't that have killed Annie instead of helped her? Also, the climbers would've shown a lot more fatigue at 26000 feet, but I'll let that go, considering that probably no one connected with the movie grew up already at 9000 feet and surrounded by mountains. Also, wouldn't Peter have given himself a heart attack doing that jump? You can't run that fast at 26000 feet. I tried it at 15000 and i almost couldn't handle it, even though i'm 18 and pretty much physically fit. But at least Chris O'Donnell looked totally awesome doing it. Go Chris! That's what counts in moviemaking. Vertical Limit wasn't perfect, but it sure made me want to go out mountain climbing, and that's the effect any good mountain movie should have on a person. I even went to see it twice...

I remember hearing some really bad things about this movie, and being the climbing maniac that I am, I decided I had to see for myself. And although there were some obvious flaws (how could Peter survive the Death Zone when he had no previous high altitude acclimatization?) I found that this movie erased many stereotypes about climbing movies created by "Cliffhanger". I enjoyed the actors' performances, especially Scott Glenn (whom I had never heard of before seeing this movie). His character, the legendary, yet reclusive sage Montgomery Wick, reluctantly agrees to lend his efforts to Peter's rescue group. Wick comes across as being rather harsh, and unkindly, but in the later scenes of the film, everything changes. (There's one part in the film that I can't get out of my head: when Wick finds his long-lost wife, Myama, frozen in the snow.) I also like the fact that all of the actors actually CLIMBED, although the film was shot on Mount Cook in New Zealand, not the real dreaded K2. I liked how they were realisitc in the fact that after prolonged exposure in the Death Zone, you will almost certainly get pulmonary edema, and will die shortly after. I also like the fact that it's not a boyfriend who's girlfriend is climbing the mountain, so he HAS to help her because he loves her. Yes, Peter loves Annie, but because they're siblings. There is a nice blend between family conflict and the extreme of the mountain, not to mention that even if you hate the movie, the music'll at least jolt you to attention.

Vertical Limit does not accomplish its goals as a action/suspense thriller, yet in itself it is still an entertaining movie.

The acting isn't half bad--much better than could be expected of films of similar quality. What kills this movie is the plot and the details. Characters die off for little good reason other than to say, "Look, mountain climbing is dangerous, particularly when you have sun, heat, and shock-sensitive nitroglycerine on your back!" Fun factoid: the Pakistani military apparently keeps this stuff on hand for some reason and is happy to lend it out to would-be mountain rescuers.

The screenplay is done in typical thriller movie fashion and actually doesn't deviate much from the tried and true formula by drawing the movie out beyond its proper end or other typical blunders. Basically, a party stranded and in grave danger of death due to freezing, altitude sicknesses, etc., must be rescued; the ambitious leader of the lost party of course cares only for himself and becomes a bad guy really overwhelmed by the antagonist represented by the forces of nature.

In the end, parts of the movie supposed to build suspense end up instead giving a few good laughs due to poor execution. I don't think I was ever on the edge of my seat--much less the edge of a cliff--during this film, but I was entertained.

I enjoy this film for "bad movie" nights a la Mystery Science Theater 3000, but I cannot recommend it for casual viewing. Still, if action films are your genre and you've exhausted the field, you might want to give this one a try.

This is a good mix of mountain climbing, action, and drama. If you like movies like Cliffhanger, K2, and Eiger Sanction you will probably enjoy it. It is easy to judge people as not caring until you have to decide to cut people loose to keep more from dying on the side of a mountain. Good cast, great scenery, and good music.

I remember hearing some really bad things about this movie, and being the climbing maniac that I am, I decided I had to see for myself. And although there were some obvious flaws (how could Peter survive the Death Zone when he had no previous high altitude acclimatization?) I found that this movie erased many stereotypes about climbing movies created by "Cliffhanger". I enjoyed the actors' performances, especially Scott Glenn (whom I had never heard of before seeing this movie). His character, the legendary, yet reclusive sage Montgomery Wick, reluctantly agrees to lend his efforts to Peter's rescue group. Wick comes across as being rather harsh, and unkindly, but in the later scenes of the film, everything changes. (There's one part in the film that I can't get out of my head: when Wick finds his long-lost wife, Myama, frozen in the snow.) I also like the fact that all of the actors actually CLIMBED, although the film was shot on Mount Cook in New Zealand, not the real dreaded K2. I liked how they were realisitc in the fact that after prolonged exposure in the Death Zone, you will almost certainly get pulmonary edema, and will die shortly after. I also like the fact that it's not a boyfriend who's girlfriend is climbing the mountain, so he HAS to help her because he loves her. Yes, Peter loves Annie, but because they're siblings. There is a nice blend between family conflict and the extreme of the mountain, not to mention that even if you hate the movie, the music'll at least jolt you to attention.

One's opinion of a movie after you've seen it is as much influenced by your expectations going in as it is by the actual worth of the movie. "Vertical Limit" is an excellent example of this. Going in I expected this to be a completely worthless movie. Disaster movies are certainly not my favorite genre and are even less dull than good guy versus bad guy shoot 'em up films. While "Vertical Limit" certainly won't win any awards, it was not nearly as bad as I anticipated.

"Vertical Limit"'s story revolves around Peter and Annie Garrett, played by Chris O'Donnell and Robin Tunney respectively. The Garretts are siblings with a background in climbing. On a climb out west an accident occurs which forces Peter to cut the rope holding his father to save himself and his sister. We flash forward several years to Pakistan where Peter has become a photographer for "National Geographic". He hasn't done any climbing since his father's death.

Annie in the meantime has garnered many accolades for her climbing achievements and has agreed to assist a wealthy businessman named Elliot Vaughn (Bill Paxton) to the top of K2, the second tallest mountain in the world. Vaughn has a promotional tie-in with his climb. He must get to the top at all costs.

A storm rolls in during the climb and three of the climbers; Annie, Vaughn, and Tom McLaren (Nicholas Lea); become trapped on the mountain by an avalanche. Peter decides to get up a rescue effort to save his sister. He manages to round up five other climbers including the reclusive Montgomery Wick (Scott Glenn) who lives on the moutain while searching for his dead wife's body. She was killed while leading another expedition of which Vaughn was a member. Wick suspects that Vaughn has had something to do with his wife's death.

From here the movie descends into the predictable "overcoming one disaster after another" scenario familiar to this genre. For some reason though, most of the action in "Vertical Limit" doesn't seemed contrived or hokey, which often happens with these films. Perhaps it's because I myself am not a climber and not familiar with the conditions often faced by such people; but, when I saw a similar movie named "Cliffhanger", it did seem contrived and hokey so I don't think this is the reason.

I'm not what you would call a fan of O'Donnell. I don't think he's a bad actor but he certainly is not going to win an Oscar any time soon. However, I think his tendency for understatement works well in this film. He allows the scenery and action sequences to speak for themselves while he allows the action to take him along. He doesn't give his lines like they are Shakespearean in origin but he does give them the weight of importance to keep you from laughing at them. Perhaps O'Donnell has found his niche with this movie.

The majority of the action and especially the climax of the movie were largely predictable. However, that does not really detract from "Vertical Limit". It may have been my low expectations coming in but I give this disaster flick a passing grade.

I loved Vertical Limit! I think all the actors, especially Chris O'Donnell, Robin Tunney, and Bill Paxton, did a terrific job playing their parts. I was very impressed with the music, the cinematography, the stunts, and the acting. There were a few things that were a bit unrealistic, like the nytro. Wouldn't that have killed Annie instead of helped her? Also, the climbers would've shown a lot more fatigue at 26000 feet, but I'll let that go, considering that probably no one connected with the movie grew up already at 9000 feet and surrounded by mountains. Also, wouldn't Peter have given himself a heart attack doing that jump? You can't run that fast at 26000 feet. I tried it at 15000 and i almost couldn't handle it, even though i'm 18 and pretty much physically fit. But at least Chris O'Donnell looked totally awesome doing it. Go Chris! That's what counts in moviemaking. Vertical Limit wasn't perfect, but it sure made me want to go out mountain climbing, and that's the effect any good mountain movie should have on a person. I even went to see it twice...

I remember hearing some really bad things about this movie, and being the climbing maniac that I am, I decided I had to see for myself. And although there were some obvious flaws (how could Peter survive the Death Zone when he had no previous high altitude acclimatization?) I found that this movie erased many stereotypes about climbing movies created by "Cliffhanger". I enjoyed the actors' performances, especially Scott Glenn (whom I had never heard of before seeing this movie). His character, the legendary, yet reclusive sage Montgomery Wick, reluctantly agrees to lend his efforts to Peter's rescue group. Wick comes across as being rather harsh, and unkindly, but in the later scenes of the film, everything changes. (There's one part in the film that I can't get out of my head: when Wick finds his long-lost wife, Myama, frozen in the snow.) I also like the fact that all of the actors actually CLIMBED, although the film was shot on Mount Cook in New Zealand, not the real dreaded K2. I liked how they were realisitc in the fact that after prolonged exposure in the Death Zone, you will almost certainly get pulmonary edema, and will die shortly after. I also like the fact that it's not a boyfriend who's girlfriend is climbing the mountain, so he HAS to help her because he loves her. Yes, Peter loves Annie, but because they're siblings. There is a nice blend between family conflict and the extreme of the mountain, not to mention that even if you hate the movie, the music'll at least jolt you to attention.

Yes,iv'e seen this mvie from begining to ending,I was praying the whole way through that it would get better,that some scenes later in the film might redeem it.No such luck.Why was this film ever made.The director and the producer must of needed some cash really fast to pay off the mob or some drug dealers or something.And what were you thinking Angela Basset being in a film like this.Angela is to good a actress to be making such trash.The plot is some Quasi-scifi wanne be soft porn flick.Tis film is dark and boring and it just dragged on until the next nude scene.Supernova still begs belief that it was ever made.And unlike some b-movie and cult classics,this movie not even worth watching to laugh at.Even the nudity not worth seeing.Nowadays there is so much nudity in film and every where else.Actually there are alot of porn films with more engaging plots then this tasteless movie.Don't waste your time or money seeing this unless you want to be rendered dumb,dazed and numb.Supernova should be vanished to the nether world.

There's no reason to recap the plot of Supernova, because you've seen it so many times before. Angela Bassett and crew are aboard the U.S.S. One-Source Blue Lighting, carrying their cargo of flashing lights, shaky cameras, and smoke machines, when they receive a distress call leading them to the bleak Planet Ridley-Scott. Then an alien spooky comes on board, delivers some snappy one-liners, and starts shooting people out of airlocks. Oh, no! Guns won't stop him! Bombs won't stop him! Really, when do they ever? This movie has nearly every cliche in the book: an arbitrary time limit before everything explodes, an intelligent talking computer, a crew whose typical mindset is "hey, a pulsating alien artifact like nothing we've ever seen before, TOUCH IT!", a wisecracking villain who has CGI on his side, and, of course, lots of one-source blue lighting, smoke machines, and so forth.

As a movie, it's moderately entertaining, but there's nothing new to see. The plot is roughly on a level with your average Sci-Fi Channel Original or USA movie of the week, but if your expectations are exceedingly low where this film is concerned, you won't be disappointed.

Supernova starts out as a cool voyage through space. All the while I was thinking I'd see something new. The first thirty minutes was pretty routine. It was saddled with cliched space dialogue and a mismatched romance between Angela and James. By the second half a guy is picked up from space and he has a lot of secrets that are found out later in the film. He has an artifact he found on another planet and soon the crew realizes it's dangerous, although they're intrigued by the stranger and his little toy.

The second half of the film turned into " Friday the 13th: In Space ". The stranger sent James' character on a wild goose chase meanwhile he ( predictably ) picked off each crew member one by one. By this time I was confused because I was in the mood to see a space film and not a cheap rendition of " The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ". Except the stranger used his out-of-space strength to get rid of the crew members.

Once again the filmmakers threw in elements that weren't needed and didn't make sense. The romance between Angela and James was weak. They could have had more time together before having to save each other's lives. Robin Tunney and Lou Diamond Phillips weren't believable as a couple. Not only was Lou Diamond way older than Tunney, the two had zero chemistry and were as boring as a PBS talk show. James Spader was not believable nor was he exciting. Hello! The lead character of a SCI-Fi picture should be exciting. Angela Bassett and Peter Facinelli were the only ones that kept my interest. I'd watch Angela Bassett in anything because she never lets a film down no matter how bad it is. The climax was my favorite part. Other than that it was two hours of noise and boring blue scenery.

Yes,iv'e seen this mvie from begining to ending,I was praying the whole way through that it would get better,that some scenes later in the film might redeem it.No such luck.Why was this film ever made.The director and the producer must of needed some cash really fast to pay off the mob or some drug dealers or something.And what were you thinking Angela Basset being in a film like this.Angela is to good a actress to be making such trash.The plot is some Quasi-scifi wanne be soft porn flick.Tis film is dark and boring and it just dragged on until the next nude scene.Supernova still begs belief that it was ever made.And unlike some b-movie and cult classics,this movie not even worth watching to laugh at.Even the nudity not worth seeing.Nowadays there is so much nudity in film and every where else.Actually there are alot of porn films with more engaging plots then this tasteless movie.Don't waste your time or money seeing this unless you want to be rendered dumb,dazed and numb.Supernova should be vanished to the nether world.

There's no reason to recap the plot of Supernova, because you've seen it so many times before. Angela Bassett and crew are aboard the U.S.S. One-Source Blue Lighting, carrying their cargo of flashing lights, shaky cameras, and smoke machines, when they receive a distress call leading them to the bleak Planet Ridley-Scott. Then an alien spooky comes on board, delivers some snappy one-liners, and starts shooting people out of airlocks. Oh, no! Guns won't stop him! Bombs won't stop him! Really, when do they ever? This movie has nearly every cliche in the book: an arbitrary time limit before everything explodes, an intelligent talking computer, a crew whose typical mindset is "hey, a pulsating alien artifact like nothing we've ever seen before, TOUCH IT!", a wisecracking villain who has CGI on his side, and, of course, lots of one-source blue lighting, smoke machines, and so forth.

As a movie, it's moderately entertaining, but there's nothing new to see. The plot is roughly on a level with your average Sci-Fi Channel Original or USA movie of the week, but if your expectations are exceedingly low where this film is concerned, you won't be disappointed.

Supernova starts out as a cool voyage through space. All the while I was thinking I'd see something new. The first thirty minutes was pretty routine. It was saddled with cliched space dialogue and a mismatched romance between Angela and James. By the second half a guy is picked up from space and he has a lot of secrets that are found out later in the film. He has an artifact he found on another planet and soon the crew realizes it's dangerous, although they're intrigued by the stranger and his little toy.

The second half of the film turned into " Friday the 13th: In Space ". The stranger sent James' character on a wild goose chase meanwhile he ( predictably ) picked off each crew member one by one. By this time I was confused because I was in the mood to see a space film and not a cheap rendition of " The Texas Chainsaw Massacre ". Except the stranger used his out-of-space strength to get rid of the crew members.

Once again the filmmakers threw in elements that weren't needed and didn't make sense. The romance between Angela and James was weak. They could have had more time together before having to save each other's lives. Robin Tunney and Lou Diamond Phillips weren't believable as a couple. Not only was Lou Diamond way older than Tunney, the two had zero chemistry and were as boring as a PBS talk show. James Spader was not believable nor was he exciting. Hello! The lead character of a SCI-Fi picture should be exciting. Angela Bassett and Peter Facinelli were the only ones that kept my interest. I'd watch Angela Bassett in anything because she never lets a film down no matter how bad it is. The climax was my favorite part. Other than that it was two hours of noise and boring blue scenery.