Today Detective Brett Hopper will be accused of shooting state attorney Alberto Garza. He will offer his rock solid alibi. He will realize he's been framed. And he will run. Then he will wake up and start the day over again.
After establishing himself as one of the world's best safe-crackers, Nelson decides to retire from his life of crime and walk the straight and narrow. However, when his brother is targeted ... See full summary »
One day in 1932, Arnold Richter disappears, only to re-appear moments later in a totalitarian future. And that's only the beginning of a travel through time, space and emotion, exposing the... See full summary »
While visiting the graveyard of his beloved wife with his daughter Jesse, the physics professor John T. Neumeyer finds a case with a police dossier relating his death in five days. He initially believes it is a sick prank from the brilliant but deranged physics student Carl Axelrod, but when a series of events related in the documents occur, he realizes that the file has been sent from the future. With the support of Detective Irwin Sikorski, whose name is indicated in the file as in charge of the investigation of his death, and suspecting of everybody including his girlfriend Claudia Whitney that has a blurred hidden past, J.T. tries to change the future and his fate. But Carl believes that any modification in the time-line will jeopardize mankind and the future of the planet.Written by
Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
The events in the mini-series take place Monday, 7 June 2004 through Friday, 11 June 2004. The show premiered on the SciFi Channel (USA) on Monday, 7 June 2004 and consecutive episodes were shown each night through Friday, 11 June 2004 roughly following a real-time schedule. The fourth episode (with events ending at or slightly past 3.55am according to the script) was actually first shown at 9.00pm on Thursday, 10 June 2004, so the series did get ahead a bit. Additional date-specific product placements (for instance, a poster for The Chronicles of Riddick (2004), playing in theaters at the time, as seen on a slow pan at the university outside Neumeyer's office) and current popular culture references (for example, a reference to the popular show, CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (2000), airing at the time on network TV) in conversation help reinforce this setup. See more »
A nude stripper is suddenly shown wearing a bikini in one shot and then she is nude again. In the same scene a topless waitress is shown wearing a bikini top and then she is topless again. See more »
My overall reaction is that I feel like I completely wasted five hours of my life watching this miniseries. While there were a few red flags in the beginning, the writing seemed to be carrying the movie. First, the red flags: the director had an extremely annoying habit of throwing in slow motion in places where it was completely out of place. Actually, there's almost never a reason for slow motion. Directors and writers don't normally write "This scene is done in slow motion" into the script. If the action in the take appears to be incredibly lame during the editing, they'll try a slow motion effect before throwing the scene away. So the high frequency of slow motion shots is a give away that the director is a hack.
** Spoiler Ahead **
Other than the director's attempt to sabotage the movie, the writing was very good for the first 4 hours and 50 minutes. It wasn't typical Sci-Fi fare, but a seemingly well crafted murder mystery. The twist was that the victim was investigating his own murder. Not bad. But there was no mystery to the ending. It was the equivalent of having the cavalry ride in at the last minute, only dumber. There was no attempt to clean up the loose ends. No attempt to explain how the professor escaped his destiny. It might have been modestly satisfying if there was an attempt to explain how the future benefactor knew that a single bullet would be needed at the last moment.
Not since Steven King's "The Stand" was there a more disappointing ending to a promising story line.
13 of 22 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this