Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: As a physics student, I've become aware of many idiot professors, and other so-called experts, in the field. As I continue with my studies, I learn more and more about real physics experiments going on, and about the people who are doing things right.

Then, my friends tell me of this "physics movie" they want to see. Knowing nothing of it, I'm excited, hoping that the information will be presented well.

I've done REAL quantum mechanics; this wasn't it.

This movie starts with the basic assumption that anything that occurs to a subatomic particle can, and will, occur to you, if you just open your eyes. Let's think about that, for just a moment.

Our bodies are composed of somewhere around 10^30 such subatomic particles. That is a million billion billion billion particles! The more "mysterious" quantum effects of just two particles can have a 50% probability of cancelling each other out completely. As you add more and more particles into the mix, it becomes almost impossible to have a large net quantum result. To tell us to believe that this is a valid assumption, with no rationality behind it...it's just stupid.

My friend, also in physics, and I counted 3 facts during the course of this movie. But they were presented in the most misleading manner I've EVER SEEN.

I cannot say as much for the neural portion of the movie, as I have not had any kind of medical training. It seemed as though it might have had a slight bit more truth to it, remembering my days in biology, but I cannot say.

At least this film had a redeeming quality: the dancing peptides (or whatever they actually were) scene. Not to ruin the invaluable plot that drives this movie, but the main character goes to a wedding, where she sees all different types of personalities "driven" by their peptides*, and then the film cuts to the dance floor, where we are spliced between people dancing, sometimes surrounded by CG peptides, and a fully CG scene, filled with dancing peptides. The film, at that point, was trying to tell us how we're "addicted to emotions," so we're treated to the full song of that smash hit, "Addicted to Love."

This scene was redeeming, because anyone who could go through THAT scene, and still take this movie seriously...well, you are the ones that need to "open your eyes."

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: A killer, cannibal rapist is killed by a crazed cop on the scene of his latest murder. At his grave a cult have gathered with plans to resurrect him by peeing onto the grave. This of course works and he awakes ripping the guys penis off and he is back into his old killing ways with an all new zombie look. The two cops one of who is going a little crazy about the scum of the city and has a drug problem, are back on the case. Two of the original cult member also tries to stop the killer by resurrecting some other kind of dead thing. Thinking they have filed they leave but out from the grave comes a plastic baby doll that was used in the original resurrection. Sounds a bit confusing really but no its just rubbish.

The acting is terrible and one of the cops is the same guy that plays Dr Vincent van Gore in the faces of gore series and he is just as terrible as the annoying cop in this film. The other cop just about struggles to get his terrible lines out. Now I'm all for low budget cinema but this film is just terrible. If it wasn't for the very easy on the eye ladies and their nakedness I would probably have fallen asleep. There is a bit of gore but it's never more than some animal guts placed on the stomach of the victims. The zombie makeup on the other hand looks great and his foot long penis that he uses to rape his victims with is kind of funny at times. There is also a half decent scene where the killer falls in love with a sex doll. The doll with the chipmunks voice is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in a film. It is just a plastic toy on a fishing line.

The ending is extremely bad. You would expect the killer to put up much more of a fight than he does. God knows how they made enough money to make a sequel.

4/10

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
I really am shocked to see the number of reviews that lambaste this movie. This movie was not intended to be a "deep thought" movie, which is what the vast majority of the reviewers seem to think it should be. In fact, it would appear that if ANY movie doesn't produce a life altering insight, and a deep, twisted, mind boggling plot, they would rate it a 1 or 2. Don't trash a movie because you don't like the genre, people.

This movie was an Action/Comedy flick, and that's all it was intended to be. And for an Action/Comedy, it was very well done. I was actually rather surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did, having never really been a Jamie Foxx fan, and having the over-used plot that it has.

The plot was nothing spectacular, using the typical criminal gets out of prison, and is thrown into bad-guy plot while trying to clean up his act (See Blue Streak, Hudson Hawk, 48 Hours, etc. etc. etc.) but it was warmed over with a bit of a technological twist. Now the "bad guys" are actually the "good guys" and the REAL "bad guy" is an uber-geek.

Jamie Foxx actually plays a convincingly humorous, while at the same time rather intelligent and serious main character, and didn't try to overdo the humor side of the film.

If you're looking for a deep underlying plot such as in "The Matrix" or a drama such as "Of Mice and Men" then this movie isn't for you. But if you enjoy the raw action, excellent fast-paced filming, and an occasional twist of humor tossed in, this movie won't disappoint you. I would normally have rated it about an 8 (on the same level as the Die Hard Trilogy), but instead gave it a 10 to try and bring the score up to what it SHOULD be.