Mike LeMar In the book, we learn what the message decodes to merely from what Harry claims. In this movie, 'My name is Jerry' is actually what's printed on the screen, which isn't realistic. If it were realistic, all of the sentences would be messed up. After getting back from the falling eggs and getting unsuited, Norman states with determination that he wants to talk to Jerry, only to try to explain to him a minute later that the guys and he need some time alone to talk things over while Jerry's adamant to talk.

CK Byrne I remember catching parts of this movie in years past and was intrigued enough to buy the DVD. Now having seen the whole thing, I regret spending the money. SPOILERS AHEAD! As a plot, it tries to do too many things in too little time. This may appeal to the Moulin Rogue mindset, but it leaves no room for character development. What's sad is there are so many aspects that COULD have been developed but were short- sold in interest of adding subplot after subplot (did it really further the story that Dustin Hoffman's character and Sharon Stone's character had a sordid past?) Hoffman's character diagnoses "Jerry" as a child who hasn't had interaction with people for 300 years which works for the plot at first, but then it's not "Jerry" but "Harry"... so why would Harry be acting like a lonely child? And this is just one of the many plot holes that are just too big to ignore. If it was Harry that killed the other scientists, and not Jerry, does that make Harry a homicidal maniac? And would two fellow scientists be sitting in the debriefing room acting "ho hum" and holding hands with this guy that just killed everyone? Oh! I forgot! EVERYONE entered the sphere at one time or another (or did they?) Ya' know, if the audience is intentionally "kept in the dark" about what's really going on so they can "empathize" with the characters on the screen, you're going to leave the audience with a "WTF" feeling when all that confusion is "explained" in a BS rough-shod, we- gotta'-keep-it-around-two-hours resolution. They were able to just "forget"??? How??? By wishing it?? Why do only SOME fears (and wishes, evidently) manifest while others don't? Stone's character mentions a fleeting thought of wanting to die and BOOM that threat materializes. And yet, during the ascent to the surface not one of them had a "fleeting" fear that there would be no boats, or that the mini-sub might be damaged and they might explode? "Oh but the magic in the movie is in the unanswerable questions." Horse hockey! Barry Levinson saw "Abyss" and wanted to make a similar movie, read Chrichton's novel and thought he could make a block buster but got in over his head and slapped the ending on so sloppily it looks like Bondo on a '63 Corvette Coupe. Don't waste your time. Watch the Abyss instead.

Razvan Rogoz It borrows heavily from Solaris (the book, not the movie). The entire logic of the movie is based on it but it falls flat in some places. The problem is that while the idea is intriguing, the exposition is plain boring and the pacing is far better in the first half than in the second one.There are a few plot twists, however, all the end, you are left with a "is this all there is?" feeling. Plus, while Solaris raised philosophical questions about the nature of existence and the limits of logic, not to mention have some really disturbing and intense scenes, this falls flat. I've watched the movie for the first half on my iPad but then, I've simply left it in the background and did something else. This is one of those movies with a great potential but dumbed down so it can be a summer blockbuster. Plus, the characters are 2D archetypes. You have the serious US Navy Captain that is always all business and too cool for school. You have the care free lady genius that is a bit crazy compared to the rest. You have the highly intelligent but insecure genius. You have the an afro- American dude that is considered a prodigy yet acts like he wants to win a popularity award. Therefore, a contrast is created. The idea is good and the inspiration is clear. It could have been a lot more. But it is dumbed down to the level that I'd rather watch Man in Black than this. You don't get a smart setup and give it a stupid execution. If you want a simplistic movie, go with a simple plot. Don't go all metaphysical and then break it up with the execution.

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com Michael Crichton, a science-fiction novelist and screenplay writer for several of his own adaptations has had many of his ideas become successful and iconic pieces in cinema. The best of Mr. Crichton's work is by far everyone's favorite prehistoric predator film, Jurassic Park (1993). That and Westworld (1973) twenty years before. There's something about Crichton's work that has many of the same motifs that show up in a lot of his other written works. One of the most notable elements is the discovery of a new science by humans and it ends up becoming more than humanity can handle. Re-emphasizing this again is in this Crichton adaptation that went largely unnoticed. Was it because it was bad? No but as a final product, there's a lot left to be desired with this sci- fi thriller.The story to this movie is about a group of doctors in different fields that travel to the bottom of the ocean to analyze a UFO that has something mysterious inside. The mysterious plot device that's inside the ship is a giant perfectly shaped golden sphere. After visiting it, strange things begin occurring on the ship and it's up to the small crew to figure it out. Directed by Barry Levinson (who has produced other Crichton adaptations) shows that he has competent direction in how he wanted the story to play out. Yet his pair of writers didn't seem to know how to make it work to the fullest extent. The writers on board for this production were Stephen Hauser (which was his only credit) and Paul Attanasio. Both of which flesh out the characters and do create some high-strung tension scenes with minor psychological elements but when it comes to explaining the orb, they miss it almost entirely.The underwater crew is made up of Dustin Hoffman (a psychiatrist), Sharon Stone (a biochemist), Samuel L. Jackson (a mathematician) and Liev Schreiber (a doctor in physics) and two operators; Peter Coyote and Queen Latifah. Of these characters, only Latifah (who has a minor role) seemed slightly out of place; all the rest act fine in their roles. That means distinctive personalities and charms. The actor who viewers would probably find the most likable is Hoffman who has a knack for being mostly nonchalant through each situation he's put into. I guess shrinks are supposed to be this calm? Not sure, but it gives him the right amount of charm. The connection these characters have is that they were all associated with Hoffman's role. Funny how popular 80s singer Huey Lewis even had a small scene stealing moment at the beginning of the movie. Random but a treat.The sphere plot device is also a treat when things start rolling (pardon the pun). However, this is exactly when the problems begin to arise. In order for strange events to happen, there's got to be reasons to back up and justify these moments. For this case, there is only one explanation given amongst a slew of other questions that go unanswered. One thing that really threw me off was when Hoffman's character discovers a cabinet worth of a specific item. Who stocked that thing? I could see if it was a mind game or hallucination but it was for real. Tell me who had the time to do that? I have to admit, moments like those will keep its audience guessing and with Hoffman's character being a shrink, the psychological aspect to the film does help make the tenseness quite intellectual. The only problem is that parts of it only theorized possible reasons but never gave definitive solutions. These of which were all based on observation.The only other negative part to the presentation of this movie is how it deliberately splits up its acts into chapters. There is no need, for two reasons. One being that, the audience will figure out when the next act is because each "chapter" if you want to call it that fades out to black. The other reason is that giving a title for the next sequence can somewhat spoil the upcoming surprising scene that audiences may not see coming. Instead, audiences are presented with giant bold print stating exactly what's headed their way. Why go through the trouble of shooting yourself in the foot like that? But enough on that, the last bits of the film still work in its favor. This belongs to the cinematography shot by Adam Greenberg (The Terminator (1984) and Rush Hour (1998)) and the music composed by Elliot Goldenthal. Since Greenberg has been the director of photography before for bigger projects, he shows that can effectively conceal the illusion during the underwater scenes. As for music, Goldenthal who isn't always the most memorable actually surprises this time. That means creating themes for certain aspects of the film, which includes creepy piano keys and quite wondrous sounding strings. It really stuck.The film has competent acting, cinematography, music, interesting psychological elements thrown in and some tense thrills. However, the writing sorely lacks in clearing up much of the plot device that is directly involved in the story other than giving a small assumption only based on observation. That and the chapter segments are a bit unnecessary.