Is the reviewer writing the review the IMDb member is reading -- or is the member reading the review he was looking for, regardless of the text actually used? I ask because clearly that sort of thinking, that sort of dialog, was near and dear to the writer of this oddball film, yet, paradoxically, it is this very strangeness that gives the film historical worth, and the chance (however slim) that it may be remembered fondly by viewers of the the far future.
We will skip the metaphysical question as to why a remake was done of a perfectly serviceable and timeless classic? What the original may have have lacked in CGI, it made up for in heart, and in its almost unique satirical POV on modern corporation communications (which led to a series spin off on Canadian TV, BTW) But Hollywood likes reimagining stuff. Even Vincent Price as THE FLY was reborn as the forever self-aware Jeff Goldbloom, and we sense this was what was intended here too.
Reviewers notes: 1. Strange casting. A-List supporting cast (including the under-used Jackie Earle Haley) yet the lead himself seems uncomfortable in the role.
2. The references to Wizard of Oz are doubly ironic since the movie itself suffers as much of an identity crisis as the main character. Since this is clearly no longer an action film with embedded satire (the "origins" go for a full hour!) then what is it? Sci-fi? Horror? Fantasy? The viewer is left to decide.
Bottom line: not entertainment as we know it. More of a film school essay topic, along the lines of what was intended ... and why was this greenlighted?
We will skip the metaphysical question as to why a remake was done of a perfectly serviceable and timeless classic? What the original may have have lacked in CGI, it made up for in heart, and in its almost unique satirical POV on modern corporation communications (which led to a series spin off on Canadian TV, BTW) But Hollywood likes reimagining stuff. Even Vincent Price as THE FLY was reborn as the forever self-aware Jeff Goldbloom, and we sense this was what was intended here too.
Reviewers notes: 1. Strange casting. A-List supporting cast (including the under-used Jackie Earle Haley) yet the lead himself seems uncomfortable in the role.
2. The references to Wizard of Oz are doubly ironic since the movie itself suffers as much of an identity crisis as the main character. Since this is clearly no longer an action film with embedded satire (the "origins" go for a full hour!) then what is it? Sci-fi? Horror? Fantasy? The viewer is left to decide.
Bottom line: not entertainment as we know it. More of a film school essay topic, along the lines of what was intended ... and why was this greenlighted?