Nope, I *still* don't get it.

Rating: 1/10 (11 January 2001)

What IS it with this film? Ten minutes of slow motion posing buried in 126 minutes of tedium and hackneyed old SF ideas does not make a groundbreaking masterpiece.
No, I just don't buy the "great effects" line. If I wanted to look at posters or posable figures, I'd do that. I prefer action scenes to have, well, action. Even the clumsy-chicks-on-wires-film (aka Charlie's Angels) has more involving action scenes than this confused rock video.
The acting is solid, but the less said about the plot, the better (no, it's not even remotely original). And at 136 minutes, this is a loooong grind. Raving fanboys, do me a favour and please describe a scene that's not in the first or last five minutes, and not on either side of one of the infrequent action scenes. There's just not a lot happening in here.