IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,5/10
2778
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuIn the future, where it's faster to travel by exchanging bodies with someone at the destination, a man's body is hijacked by a ruthless terrorist.In the future, where it's faster to travel by exchanging bodies with someone at the destination, a man's body is hijacked by a ruthless terrorist.In the future, where it's faster to travel by exchanging bodies with someone at the destination, a man's body is hijacked by a ruthless terrorist.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Kyle MacLachlan
- Fisk
- (as Kyle Maclachlan)
- …
Charles Edwin Powell
- Quayle Scott
- (as Charles Powell)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
This is a completely trivial lightweight action flick, yet it succeeded in entertaining (at least me). Its science fiction setting is almost entirely window dressing, although a few valiant efforts have been made to illustrate the futuristic setting. Most of the time these gadgets and technological wonders look and seem familiar from other, more innovative movies, but here they've been done convincingly enough.
The actors all do decent work, maybe with the exception of Janet Kidder, whose on-the-verge-of-a-nervous-breakdown persona is a bit grating for my tastes. Neither am I plagued by an allergy of the Baldwin brothers, that some of the other reviewers here seem to be suffering from. Stephen seems to be doing just fine on the acting front, maybe even better than his more famous brothers :)
The tension in the plot is constant, if totally predictable. Yes, you have probably seen this done before a dozen times (at least), so don't see it if you're always craving for something brand new and original. But... it's done quite well, so it's a safe bet. Science fiction, it's not, though. Good show. A 5 out of 10 from me.
The actors all do decent work, maybe with the exception of Janet Kidder, whose on-the-verge-of-a-nervous-breakdown persona is a bit grating for my tastes. Neither am I plagued by an allergy of the Baldwin brothers, that some of the other reviewers here seem to be suffering from. Stephen seems to be doing just fine on the acting front, maybe even better than his more famous brothers :)
The tension in the plot is constant, if totally predictable. Yes, you have probably seen this done before a dozen times (at least), so don't see it if you're always craving for something brand new and original. But... it's done quite well, so it's a safe bet. Science fiction, it's not, though. Good show. A 5 out of 10 from me.
X Change is pretty standard B grade cable TV sci fi but the mostly gratuitous sex scenes make a point of showing bare breasts in an aesthetically pleasing manner. Oh and there are some thoughtful ideas in the story as well.
I'm usually not into Sci-Fi, but I like a good thriller. This movie is both - and at the same time none of the above. I think the story would benefit if it was set in a twisted present instead of the "not so distant future". The movie makers haven't put enough effort into making you believe this is the future. That said, the story has a faint touch of Orwell (author of the unreal and brilliant novel "1984", written in 1948, from which the expression "Big Brother" originate).
The main idea of body switching opens up so many fascinating possibilities, and the movie barely scratches the surface. It leaves you thinking "what if..."
The story isn't the best written one in the world, in fact it's rather thin at times. The acting is average with a few exceptions. The presentation isn't in any way high tech or extremely impressive. Still I think it was a good movie. It's the story beyond the movie that makes it great for me.
Definitely worthwhile, if you like a weird story.
The main idea of body switching opens up so many fascinating possibilities, and the movie barely scratches the surface. It leaves you thinking "what if..."
The story isn't the best written one in the world, in fact it's rather thin at times. The acting is average with a few exceptions. The presentation isn't in any way high tech or extremely impressive. Still I think it was a good movie. It's the story beyond the movie that makes it great for me.
Definitely worthwhile, if you like a weird story.
This was another of those films you catch when channel hopping the movie channels, normally I just catch the start of many films and get very quickly bored and move on, not this time. It created a whole new (scary) world that was very clean and very techno. Our hero was very competently played by Kim Coates with whom I was not very familiar with, as the film moved on (without giving too much away it's about the transfer of conciousness from one body to another) the lead was played by a succession of characters, Kim Coates for the introduction part, Kyle MacLachlan for the 'what's happening to me' bit and finally Stephen Baldwin for the action role. Each one bringing just what was needed to pull off the role. I highly recommend this film. My congrats and thanks to all those involved.
Don't listen to the other comments here. This is one science fiction movie that works. It manages to get all the things it's got going against it, work *for* it.
Take the male lead, for instance. Stephen Baldwin is not the sharpest knife in the drawer (and indeed, hasn't exactly starred in a lot of quality movies). So in this movie he's got no mind of his own. He's an assembly line clone, used as a host or worker body for the corporate jetset. That's putting a man of Stephen Baldwin's caliber to the best possible use!
The movie is about mind transfers. That's the plot, and the writer takes the utmost consequence of what this means. A plot that would be an insufferably silly stunt-of-the-week on an episode of Star Trek, Stargate or Farscape, manages here to be described disturbingly realistically and in a near-present day setting. Every possible twist that could possibly be imagined if this technology existed is commented on in one way or the other. No stone is left unturned. The sexual possibilities alone remain an important on-going sub-plot. This is highly unusual for a run-of-the-mill sci fi/action flick.
The SFX are fairly few, and integrated seamlessly and perfectly into the story. The one-molecule-thick cutting wire is really cool.
Like I said, it works. All of it. It is engaging, coherent, tasteful (all the four female main characters have topless scenes, and no, they are *not* gratuitous, but enhance the characterization), well-written, and goes out of its way to avoid clichés. For commercial flicks of any kind, this doesn't happen often. It's too bad the guy who wrote it hasn't done anything else.
I'm amazed to see that most of the commentators here have such a low opinion of this movie. Don't listen to them. This movie succeeds in everything it sets out to do. For a B movie, it is good. Surprisingly good. It will hold up for several viewings, if you're the type of person who can appreciate it. This is going to be a cult favorite.
8 out of 10.
Take the male lead, for instance. Stephen Baldwin is not the sharpest knife in the drawer (and indeed, hasn't exactly starred in a lot of quality movies). So in this movie he's got no mind of his own. He's an assembly line clone, used as a host or worker body for the corporate jetset. That's putting a man of Stephen Baldwin's caliber to the best possible use!
The movie is about mind transfers. That's the plot, and the writer takes the utmost consequence of what this means. A plot that would be an insufferably silly stunt-of-the-week on an episode of Star Trek, Stargate or Farscape, manages here to be described disturbingly realistically and in a near-present day setting. Every possible twist that could possibly be imagined if this technology existed is commented on in one way or the other. No stone is left unturned. The sexual possibilities alone remain an important on-going sub-plot. This is highly unusual for a run-of-the-mill sci fi/action flick.
The SFX are fairly few, and integrated seamlessly and perfectly into the story. The one-molecule-thick cutting wire is really cool.
Like I said, it works. All of it. It is engaging, coherent, tasteful (all the four female main characters have topless scenes, and no, they are *not* gratuitous, but enhance the characterization), well-written, and goes out of its way to avoid clichés. For commercial flicks of any kind, this doesn't happen often. It's too bad the guy who wrote it hasn't done anything else.
I'm amazed to see that most of the commentators here have such a low opinion of this movie. Don't listen to them. This movie succeeds in everything it sets out to do. For a B movie, it is good. Surprisingly good. It will hold up for several viewings, if you're the type of person who can appreciate it. This is going to be a cult favorite.
8 out of 10.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesJanet Kidder's (Margot Kidder's neice) only nude scene.
- PatzerWhen Toffler and Madeline cut off Toffler's timer on his arm, in the long shot before the close-up on his arm, you can clearly see the removable patch on his arm that is cut off in the next close-up shot.
- Alternative VersionenThe version shown on cable TV adds roughly 15-20 seconds of footage during the sex scene between Quayle Scott and Alison De Wasy, including additional dialogue about their secret plans, that is not included in the U.S. DVD release. However the missing footage is also included on the R2 UK DVD release.
- VerbindungenReferenced in American Dad: Da Flippity Flop (2013)
- SoundtracksAfrodiziak
Performed by Bran Van 3000
Written by E.P. Bergen, James Di Salvio (as J. Di Salvio), Steve 'Liquid' Hawley (as S. Hawley)
Published by Les Editions Kaligram (SOCAN/BMI)
Courtesy of Audiogram Records
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Xchange?Powered by Alexa
Details
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen