Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

2freensel I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Leofwine_draca THE RESURRECTION OF ZACHARY WHEELER is a weird little sci fi movie most probably forgotten by today's audiences. Certainly the low budget of the thing is off-putting, but if you can overcome the film's deficiencies then you might just enjoy it nonetheless. This is a fun little cloning thriller that plays out with the same kind of verve as a Michael Crichton film or the likes of THE CHINA SYNDROME.Leslie Nielsen stars in the straight role of a reporter who witnesses a politician being mortally injured in a car accident. Before long the whole thing is hushed up, so he takes it upon himself to investigate and uncover the truth, which is that the government have begun a cloning scheme in order to harvest spare parts. There are a few chase scenes here, alongside some moments involving people in dodgy blue make up, and it's all very limited. But the film covers the same paranoid government conspiracy ground as many a '70s thriller, and Nielsen gives a solid performance as the lead. Bradford Dillman and Angie Dickinson play in support.

Sturgeon54 This film did remind me of the kinds of ideas in Crichton's novels - especially his early medical fiction. Who would have guessed that a now-forgotten low-budget B-movie would actually end up more timely almost 40 years after its original release? I don't know of any earlier film treatments of the subject of cloning than this film - I really wonder what audiences thought when this first came out, as the plot line of the film must have seemed really wild back then. I don't particularly care for remakes - especially of good movies like this - but now would be a terrific time for a remake of this story, possibly with a better budget. As it is, the film stretches its budget pretty well, but I would have appreciated greater attention to the scientific aspects of the cloning (possibly with some special effects). Additionally, because all of the real-life politicians seem to be weighing in on the stem cell and medical ethics issues, the political aspects of the story would fit perfectly into a remake, where they could be fleshed out in greater detail. I guess this movie just has me thinking more of what it could have been than what it is. On its own level, it is a surprisingly thoughtful low-budget film that concentrates on ideas, rather than action. For that, it is well worth searching out.On a final note, it has a ridiculous non-sequitur ending that had me giggling, but the ending seems to fit a cheap movie like this, whose filmmakers certainly couldn't afford a lot of explosions and gunfights .

jnc01 Watch this movie, and reflect that 30 years later, we are having a similar ethical debate on stem cell research, and the use of aborted faetuses to cure diseases.Further reflect on recent cloning advances. What if you could clone a human, with no brain? (It is an unfortunate condition that occurs occationally in humans. The offspring die shortly after birth.) Would it be moral to use their bodies to extend your life?

yortsnave This is a surprisingly suspenseful and thought-provoking sci-fi movie. Even more topical and relevant today, as cloning and organ transplantation become more mature. To what lengths will we go, what will we pay, to be cured of our worst degenerative diseases and to live almost forever? How much power would an organisation have, that could give us such health and near-immortality?