If you're going to a movie like this one, kind of a sci-fi/horror version of Waiting for Godot, then the characters and the dialogue are crucial. This is where this film falls down. The characters are essentially one dimensional, and while some show growth and development over the course of the film, most remain undeveloped. The dialogue is at times leaden, with endless and heated discourses on the "military-industrial complex" and other such "political" issues. Like other reviewers, I can see why it was a hit in France. I kept expecting a character to announce something like "OK, lets escape from here and all go to Starbucks to discuss the philosophical implications on the destruction of individualism and it's impact on society". This is the sort of leaden discussions one continues to read in European intellectual circles, and seems particularly popular amongst some of the intelligentsia in France. Alas, class issues and the nefarious doings of the military industrial complex have little resonance in 1999 USA.
In the story itself the characters actions often seem illogical and forced at times. I know that they're supposed to be under stress, but they also seem pretty slow to catch on for a group of hyper bright people. The portrayal of the autistic savant came perilously close to being insulting, saved only by the actors skill. The other actors (mainly no-names) also give it a good shot, particularily give the material they had to work with. The ending seemed contrived, and some plot resolution in terms of the why and how would have improved the film.
The best role I see for this film is as a discussion piece for undergraduate Poli Sci and Philosophy classes. Professors and TA's take note.
5 out of 10, mainly for acting and the innovative use of cheap sets.
In the story itself the characters actions often seem illogical and forced at times. I know that they're supposed to be under stress, but they also seem pretty slow to catch on for a group of hyper bright people. The portrayal of the autistic savant came perilously close to being insulting, saved only by the actors skill. The other actors (mainly no-names) also give it a good shot, particularily give the material they had to work with. The ending seemed contrived, and some plot resolution in terms of the why and how would have improved the film.
The best role I see for this film is as a discussion piece for undergraduate Poli Sci and Philosophy classes. Professors and TA's take note.
5 out of 10, mainly for acting and the innovative use of cheap sets.