input: Years have past since Alex Rain (played by Olivier Gruner in the first movie) stumbled onto the horrific plot that involved replacing humans with machines however since then a war between cyborgs and humans has emerged and we lost, now a superwoman of sorts who is the daughter of Olivier Gruner's character (She also inherits only half of his minimal acting ability) which I think is the films minimal connection to the first, however when the superwoman is created she hides in 1980 while a bounty hunter from the future hunts her down in this confusing sci-fi clunker. Nemesis became a cult hit, that I can see why people liked even though I was no fan of said film. Nemesis tried very ambitiously to come up with different ideas, develop a beautiful look and provide tons of action, it almost worked. Nemesis 2 doesn't even have that ambition, it's a cheap rip off of The Terminator with a muscled female who is so low on acting ability she makes Olivier Gruner seem like a master thespian and the action sequences lack the explosive scope that was the main selling point of the original. I'll admit I was no fan of the original but it deserved a better follow up than this. The original also featured a good cast like Tim Thomerson, Cary Hiroyuki Tagawa, Thom Mathews, Brion James, Thomas Jane and yes Jackie Earle Haley this one features nobody and this time it's just a dull movie with a pretentious vibe. In fact after I saw this, it inspired to add a half star to the original.

* out of 4-(Bad)

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Firstly I would like to point out that I only know of the show due to my younger sister always watching it. I find it the most annoying program on TV. There is nothing funny about any of the 'jokes' and the canned laughter is unbearable. The show would work much better if filmed in front of a live audience. That way the laughter would show just how 'unfunny' the show is. However I give credit to the acting talents of the young cast. It sickens me however to think that they'll look back on the show in the future and see how bad their first TV show was. The show links in well with the overall annoying voices and style of the CBBC presenters. Why the youth of today need to be shouted at so much is beyond me. That is all.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: It was hard to watch this film and be totally fair and objective since I am a big fan the original 1944 movie. That, to me and many others, is one of the greatest film noirs ever made. Realizing this is simply a shortened made-for-TV film and that most people had trashed it, I didn't expect much, but you can't help but compare this with the '44 film. Scene after scene, I found myself comparing what I was looking at it, and remembering how it played out with Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Edward G. Robinson and others. Now I was seeing these famous actors playing their famous roles replaced by Richard Crenna, Samantha Eggar and Lee J. Cobb.

When it was all over, I found it wasn't as bad as I had expected but it's no match for the 1944 original. The two main areas in which this made-for-TV film wasn't as good were (1) the electricity between the two leads was missing and (2) being only 90 minutes, they rushed the story with hardly time to develop the plot, characters and chemistry between those leads. Crenna and Eggar were flat, and simply no match for MacMurray and Stanwyck as "Walter Neff" and "Phyllis Dietrichson," respectively.

Where this re-make held its own was in the other characters, such as "Barton Keyes" and "Edward Norton." Cobb was terrific as Keyes and Robert Webber as Norton, head of the insurance company. It also was somewhat interesting to see the time frame changed, so the houses, cars, telephones, dictating machines, etc., were all early '70s instead of mid '40s. Otherwise, the storyline was very similar, just rushed.

However, one viewing was enough and I will happily go back to the original version for the rest of my viewings of this classic story and film.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This movie is so bad, you almost feel contaminated by it. Actually, there is a strong sense of relief when it's over, relief that you can now put the cassette back in the rewinder and RUSH this back to the video rental store before it contaminates the rest of your video collection. I jokingly suggested when we rented it that it looked like the kind of film where William Hurt would "phone in" his performance. I meant that he would not be trying very hard. But lo and behold, in a huge number of scenes in this film, Bill Hurt is actually ON THE PHONE! Our realization of this irony was the only pleasure we derived from this confusing mess. The cinematography and editing are murky and befuddled, the story is chaotic, and the soundtrack is barely audible. There is a very slight resemblance to "Falling Down", but that film had a boldly disturbing story-line, great writing and acting, and an engaging soundtrack. "Contaminated Man" is just some kind of broken down old European tourist trap, and watching it is like driving along some unfamiliar back road in an unknown country where you don't speak the language in a steady rain just after nightfall as the windshield keeps fogging up. You get the picture? Don't get this one.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative