MartinHafer A few years before the wildly successful and very well made "X-Men" movie, there was a TV version that bombed. "Generation X" was pretty much the same show though the characters they focused on were mostly different from the ones in the movies. In both cases, mutants are distrusted by the masses and unregistered mutants are being rounded up by the authorities. However, there's a mutant academy and many of these folks are being spirited off to this school where they'll learn to channel their skills and use them to fight evil. So why didn't they green light the series? Well, I don't think it was because the public wasn't ready for such a show. To me, the problem is the very limited appeal of the show based on its style. While made in 1996, it looks right from 1984 with a strong New Wave style. The colors, music, lighting and look of the show look very dated and very 80s. The show also seemed focused towards teens only. Additionally, and this is what bothered me the most, the camera angles were annoying just to be annoying! Askew angles abound...and it jut makes it look cheap and kind of stupid! Add to that some occasionally poor writing and a bizarre character played by Matt Frewer (I think he was channeling Max Headroom a bit too much here) and you'll understand why the show was a flop and didn't get off the ground. After seeing this pilot movie, I am certainly glad they never made more.

rossmcdee1 Although the previous review mentions good acting the story is severely criticised; however to me (with over 30 years of comic book reading experience) the story is superb and well written with a cynicism sadly missing from most po faced costumed escapades. For the last 10 years this has been one of my favourite Comic book adaptations- Danger Diabolik & Batman Begins being two notable others.The fact that the direction is less than average; the set designs garishly multicoloured and the acting (in general) rather wooden, spoil this brave attempt at 'post modern' super heroics. The direction is in the music video mould of handcam wobbliness giving the whole film a sea-sick sensation, spoiling an otherwise interesting and fun (in an O.T.T. megalomaniac comic book style) adventure yarn. Whatever its failings it was still 100x better than the time waster MUTANT X.

goddess_starr60 OMG. i have been searching for this movie for years. i saw it when i was 12 on fox and taped it.. i have horrible luck so of course my father tapes over it.. LAME!! then the name of the movie was lost to me.. the other day i was watching dawn of the dead(also an amazing movie) when i see Matt frewer(frank)and the fist thing that pops into my head is that the doctor on that x-men movie. still not remembering the name.. thanks to the all knowing internet i now know the name of the movie and i have placed my bid to own it once again.. now i can have a piece of my childhood back and love it forever!!!! u have no idea how happy i am right now. down right gitty if i might say so myself!!!! =D

Tony_Hedlund As always in this kinds of movies, series etc, the plot is vague, unplanned, thin and so on...This is definetly a follow- up on X Men, but, sorry to say, this TV movie lacks the touch of reality, although it shows people and so. What I mean is the persons unnatural responses when spoken to, or actions made at them.But the most annoying thing about most 'modern' movies is that as soon there's an PC in the picture, the persons types like hell, and it happens... blip, a few windows opens, text scrolling... ARGH! I wish they could at least make the typing credible. I don't know where the heck they get these ideas to make everything graphical. And I don't talk just about typing, and as well as special FX.Btw, how the heck could the guy break into the Cerebro's security program without first crack the code using another application (Visually for the TV- audience?)? Bahhh...Gadgets here and there.. I wonder.. How come the 'dream machine' looked just like the one the wierdos machine? An error in the making of the prop's... Also, why do the directors insist that there's always a third persons viewingangle when they're in the dreamstate, everything is sharp as a knifeedge.. Ok, that was deep, I know... But anyway, it should be a little more dim and fuzzy there...Many of you might wonder why I even bother to complaint at crap like this? Well... They still doing this bad job today... Last film I saw that actually were crappier was Stephen King's The Mangler 2.0... Uuuuh...