dylan1734

The only reason I rented this movie from Netflix was because a very good friend of mine worked on it. Even he said it was awful, and that he only took the job to keep his bills paid.

But my god, what a piece of absolute rubbish! Aside from the pitiful performances, a plot that made little sense, the cheapest CGI since the Atari 2400, a script with no punch, and a directorial style that lacks .. well, direction .. it's not a bad film.

How, exactly, did "Lazarus" command the cockroaches? What exactly was the point of Mickey Rourke's character? We know why Mickey Rourke was hired, he was the celebrity "draw" that's supposed to make us viewers say "Wow, it must be a great movie if it has Mickey Rourke!" And when all the cockroaches group together to become one giant cockroach .. well, yeah .. Lame.

One positive note; the actor who played Lazarus was actually a pretty good actor. Sure, he had a stupid role and ridiculous lines, but he actually pulled the part off pretty well. He reminded me a little bit of a Benicio del Toro.

If you're thinking of renting this movie, do yourself a favor and just stick an ice pick in your eye.

I found it quite odd that none of the reviews of this film mentioned the horror remake of Virgin Spring. In 1972, a young unknown director made a film called "Last House on the Left" based on Virgin Spring. It is a modern day retelling of the same film, but goes way further than Bergman ever dreamed. Officially known to horror buffs as the incestuous father of the slasher genre, "Last House on the Left" stands out as possibly the most demented and vulgar movie ever made. And just who was that unknown director? None other than horror king Wes Craven.

View them both in one night.

I am in the process of reading Michael Palmer's book, "Extreme Measures." The book is actually quite riveting, but how the book became this movie kind of baffles me. I was 2/3 of the way through the book before I realized I had a seen this movie. It wasn't until the young doctor got framed for cocaine possession that I thought "Wait, I think I saw a movie a few years ago with Hackman and Grant that sort of paralleled a lot of this book." Well, I looked it up on the trusty IMDB and sure enough, someone attempted to make a film of the book. However, the similarities stop at the basic plot and the title. All the character names have been changed; the lead character in the book was an Armenian American, not a British exchange student or whatever Grant was; the book's red herring was a voodoo subplot that, if memory serves me, was omitted from the film. The lead character was an ER doctor, not a neurosurgical intern and, even though I am yet to finish the novel, the plot doesn't have to do with spinal injuries, but instead seems to revolve around turning people into "zombies" and then subjecting them to illnesses so they can test experimental drugs.

Unlike the 13 year old who reviewed this film, I liked the fact that Hackman's character had noble intentions in his evil plot. It gave you pause to think about your own moral decisions. The film I found to be a moderately enjoyable picture, but the fact that I didn't recall the title even though I was reading the book (sheer coincidence), tells you that I found the film to be overwhelmingly forgettable. However, if memory serves me, it had its moments and is probably an enjoyable enough movie if you happen to catch it on late night cable; I wouldn't recommend going out of your way to rent it or see it, unless you're a fan of Hugh Grant.

Out of 5 stars, I rate the film 2.