SEND IN THE CLONE
Added 11/27/2003
MR. MURDER is an okay adaptation of Koontz's novel. It's biggest fault is actually the casting of Stephen Baldwin in the all important leading role. Baldwin's range is extremely limited, and sometimes there was little difference between the real writer and the clone. This is especially true in the first half of the movie; later on, he tries a little harder and he salvages what little he can of his performance. Other than that, there are some interesting suspenseful moments; Julie Warner tries hard as Baldwin's wife, but she has to overcome a lot of inadequacy from Baldwin; James Coburn is wasted but the pro he is, he puts more into his smaller role than Baldwin did. Thomas Haden Church was awful. Monotone, boring, he came off even worse than Baldwin!!!
The movie has some suspenseful moments, but it's not as good as the book. However, overall, it's fairly entertaining and not as awful as some may think.
8 out of 9 people found this helpful.
|
It's pretty awful.
Added 3/6/2002
Stephen Baldwin is a horror writer who discovers he has an identical, murderous clone. This silly Dean Koontz adaptation is based off of his equally silly novel, so it's no surprise the script has all the typical Koontz plot elements: Government conspiracy, heroes going on the run, and a final fight in the middle of nowhere. The only difference is that the mystery is revealed at the beginning! Overlong miniseries (Which actually features nudity in the video version)features countless leapholes in logic, unconvincing special effects, and a hilariously wooden Stephen Baldwin as the writer and killer. You can count the number of good Koontz novels and movies on one hand (Phantoms, anyone?), and this sure as hell isn't one of them.
6 out of 25 people found this helpful.
|
A decent made-for-TV movie
Added 1/9/2001
In general, Dean Koontz books haven't been translated to movies very successfully. This one made the transition better than most. ("Watchers", "Whispers", and "Phantoms" were appalling. The best adaptation, "Intensity", another made-for-TV movie, was never released after broadcast.) This movie follows the book rather well and, several times, generates a nice level of suspense. Obviously, much had to be cut or skimmed over to make it fit time constraints: better that than bogging down the pace with detail. Steven Baldwin wouldn't have been my choice for the lead, but he performs it adequately. James Coburn was wasted. As a made-for-TV, there isn't a widescreen version and the sound is only 2-channel stereo. I'm glad I saw it when first broadcast in two parts; it was good to see it uninterrupted when it was released, but I'm not willing to shell out the bucks to own it.
12 out of 14 people found this helpful.
|
never again
Added 2/20/2000
never ever put any money towards this movie, i wish there were a rating less than one star cause this thing was horrible, talk about predictable i and everyone who watched it had the entire plot of the movie mapped out 30mins into it.
1 out of 9 people found this helpful.
|
Koontz Fans Will Be Disapointed
Added 9/14/1999
I am a Dean Koontz fan and I have to say that this movie is one of the bad translations of his work. If you are not a fan of the book then by all means tell us what you think. I cann't be that objective because I am. So, if you haven't read the book, watch it. If you have read it, you will be disappointed. How does that saying go? It's never as good as the book.
24 out of 27 people found this helpful.
|
SEND IN THE CLONE
Added 11/27/2003
MR. MURDER is an okay adaptation of Koontz's novel. It's biggest fault is actually the casting of Stephen Baldwin in the all important leading role. Baldwin's range is extremely limited, and sometimes there was little difference between the real writer and the clone. This is especially true in the first half of the movie; later on, he tries a little harder and he salvages what little he can of his performance. Other than that, there are some interesting suspenseful moments; Julie Warner tries hard as Baldwin's wife, but she has to overcome a lot of inadequacy from Baldwin; James Coburn is wasted but the pro he is, he puts more into his smaller role than Baldwin did. Thomas Haden Church was awful. Monotone, boring, he came off even worse than Baldwin!!!
The movie has some suspenseful moments, but it's not as good as the book. However, overall, it's fairly entertaining and not as awful as some may think.
8 out of 9 people found this helpful.
|
It's pretty awful.
Added 3/6/2002
Stephen Baldwin is a horror writer who discovers he has an identical, murderous clone. This silly Dean Koontz adaptation is based off of his equally silly novel, so it's no surprise the script has all the typical Koontz plot elements: Government conspiracy, heroes going on the run, and a final fight in the middle of nowhere. The only difference is that the mystery is revealed at the beginning! Overlong miniseries (Which actually features nudity in the video version)features countless leapholes in logic, unconvincing special effects, and a hilariously wooden Stephen Baldwin as the writer and killer. You can count the number of good Koontz novels and movies on one hand (Phantoms, anyone?), and this sure as hell isn't one of them.
6 out of 25 people found this helpful.
|
A decent made-for-TV movie
Added 1/9/2001
In general, Dean Koontz books haven't been translated to movies very successfully. This one made the transition better than most. ("Watchers", "Whispers", and "Phantoms" were appalling. The best adaptation, "Intensity", another made-for-TV movie, was never released after broadcast.) This movie follows the book rather well and, several times, generates a nice level of suspense. Obviously, much had to be cut or skimmed over to make it fit time constraints: better that than bogging down the pace with detail. Steven Baldwin wouldn't have been my choice for the lead, but he performs it adequately. James Coburn was wasted. As a made-for-TV, there isn't a widescreen version and the sound is only 2-channel stereo. I'm glad I saw it when first broadcast in two parts; it was good to see it uninterrupted when it was released, but I'm not willing to shell out the bucks to own it.
12 out of 14 people found this helpful.
|
