Q: Soylent Green I found to be an excellent movie.

If you like Logan's Run you'll like this.

Yes the movie is old and there are no special effects and some of the acting can somewhat be best described as "cheesy" but the story is excellent.

The story of how the world can be and its impact on society is very poignant.

At the end the mystery wasn't a mystery but the story unfolded in an easy at the right pace.

It's nearest modern day equivalent would be "Dark Angel" in terms of how the US is shown to be third-world country.
A: positive
Q: I am, as many are, a fan of Tony Scott films. When this movie came out I had high hopes that it would be like 'Man On Fire'. To find out that the movie it's the furthest thing from it! The story was treading water from the get go, and the choice of Mickey Rourke was not such such a good idea. And the whole 'arm'scene was too gratuitous!

The movie is centered around Kiera Kinghtly, and this movie reveals that she'll never become a movie star! The movie brought some of the worst acting ever.

I like Tony Scott's direction 'n all, but this takes the whole friggin cake! Sorry Ton, 1 out of 10!
A: negative
Q: I found this to be an utter waste of time, effort and money. I know Disney always displays lack of creativity when making "straight-to-video" films - but rehashing the plot of the original film with a "new perspective" is an all-time low...soon they'll just be re-releasing the original films with new animation and new songs and be calling it a "new version of the movie we all love." Nathan Lane surprisingly returns to his role of Timon yet again. Timon and Pumbaa the animated animals from the world of the original "Lion King" embark on a narrative journey to tell us the original story the way it REALLY happened...as they see it.

Of course Timon is now the hero of the story, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah...

The musical sequences are lame and the animation is crap. The vocal talents are impressive for a video feature, but then again, when was the last time you remember Matthew Broderick, Whoopi Goldberg or Nathan Lane being in anything of real commercial substance? Overall if you liked the original you'll hate this. It's insulting because it's unfair to children and adults alike. And that about sums it up.
A: negative
Q: Jeremy Northam struggles against a "Total Recall" clone script and disposable romantic by-play to bring life to a confused character. Lucy Liu graduates her acting from a wooden start to a workman-like finish. You can't fail to laugh when viewing her interviews on the DVD when she uses the term "Femme fatal" and "Romance". French film-noir actress she is not and they lack chemistry together.

This movie fails, not in the plot or the action sequences but in the lack of attention to detail in the films photography and ham-fisted portrayal of the world of technology surrounding the main protagonists. Little attempt is made to dress the scenery to represent any contiguous filmic landscape or period. Automobiles are very 1990's and the architecture barely modern with open plans that hint at a restricted budget rather than conscious set dressing techniques.

The technology is positively hilarious. Massive "2001: A Space Odyssey" mainframes fed by man-portable CD-ROM's with data collected for some unexplained reason, in spite of the proliferating communications network that even the most un-savvy technologist today would obviously be aware. There is an obvious lack of research done here and given the open-source nature of the cyber-community, research would have cost little more than a bulletin board and personal time.

DVD interviews also reveal the original movie name was "Company Man" but this likely ditched in order to cash in on Matrix hype. The "Cypher" title has only the slightest link with the movie. Terry Gilliam would have done wonders with this concept; and completely re-written the Decalogue.

This is Tele-movie quality and extremely disappointing for a movie length production. It might have made a good sub-plot for "Alias".
A: negative