InAlienable

Seriously? You are really saying:"The movie was very interesting as far as Sci-fi is concerned, but what really sold this film was the outstanding performance by Richard "Captain Apollo" Hatch"? The worst part of the movie was a really poor quality of acting. Story was somewhat interesting but everything else was close to ridiculous. Not that there is nothing that sold the film but the film is a shame. I feel sorry for Marina Sirtis and Eric Avari because they were the only ones that did do some actual acting. Yes, Courtney Peldon was sexy but in a bimbo kind of way - no real intellect detected. This movie was a great waste of time and if it was 1954 maybe it would be appreciated as a third class film.

Changes saved. Share this photo with friends, even if they're not on Facebook.

.Although the casting suggests this movie was tailor-made for distribution at Sci-Fi conventions, INALIENABLE (2007) is a unique B-movie that marries genre conventions with courtroom drama. Star Trek alumnus Walter Koenig reunited with his Moontrap (1989) director Robert Dyke and roped in a bunch of fellow convention guests (from not only the Star Trek franchise but also shows such as V and Alien Nation) to bring his screenplay to life. Premiering online before eventually hitting DVD, the movie was made for approximately $1.5 million and the limitations of the production are evident in the handful of sparse sets and limited visual effects. At the heart of the movie, which is about a male scientists who is infected by an alien parasite and gives birth to a new lifeform, is mainly notable for a great, emotional performance from one-time Battlestar Galactica actor Richard Hatch. With an emphasis on drama rather than spectacle, this is a curious genre-hybrid with a surprisingly downbeat and sudden ending.

That's all I can imagine. these washed up Science fiction actors from Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek and Babylon 5 all get together to make a movie, and only end up showing us how old some of them have gotten. Koenig, in particular, looks like the living dead in this movie. It's like they all got drunk in a bar after answering Sci-Fi nerds questions about what would happen if a Vulcan made love to a Minbari in a TARDIS, and said, "Dammit, we're actors! We can do better than this!" The movie's main flaw, besides its inherent cheapness, is that Richard Hatch of "Mormons in Space"... Er "Battlestar Galactica" fame still can't act or carry a film.

The plot is that an meteor carrying a life form attaches itself to Hatch's character, and turns into a horribly deformed Mini-me. Instead of the usual car chases and explosions (which would have cost money), they go to court like Law and Order. Doink-doink....

A scientist (Richard Hatch) who experiments on lab animals is given a meteorite fragment that contains an alien life form. Unknown to him, it crawls inside his body while he's asleep and due to some interesting scientific stuff, the man becomes pregnant. Although his boss and the Feds want to destroy his offspring, he sees it as his legitimate son and fights to protect it.

There's plenty of cheesy acting from a variety of notable sci-fi faces. At least one character from each "Star Trek" series is in this movie (I dare you to recognize them all). The plot is a bit flaky, and you can question how a man can give birth (they do attempt to explain this). The special effects are good at times, odd at others. The whole Charlie Chaplin thing is pretty weird.

What will disappoint many people is that half of this film is more of a courtroom drama than a science fiction film. There's an alien and all that, but the real focus of the film is debating what is or is not human and whether it has rights or not. Some of the arguments are preposterous and while they hold up in this film would never hold up in real life. The attempt to compare aliens to minorities is weak, ignoring the fact that foreigners are not given the rights of American citizens, and neither are animals. The only chance they can make their case is if they successfully have Ben (the alien) declared the naturally-born son of the main character, which is a stretch.

There's some parallel here to Larry Cohen's "It's Alive", although I'm sure this was not intentional. In that film (or one of its sequels), a father fights for his son's life in court despite most people thinking the kid to be a monster, as his DNA was radically altered by chemicals. That case would be a little easier to make, ignoring the alien aspects and the born from a man thing...

I enjoyed "Inalienable". Do I think it was amazing? No, not really. But it's not bad and worth a watch if you're into science fiction. The writers really put in a serious effort to make this sound plausible, though they clearly don't know how the law works. If you watch SyFy channel movies, which is where you're likely to see this if you don't rent it, this is better than most of the fluff they show.

i just watched InAlienable and i really liked it. It did start of slow and the acting at times was questionable, but i didn't expect anything spectacular. The whole point of the movie is to get people away from the Hollywood type movies and open peoples minds, you should not expect much in the graphics and acting. However the acting in the movie was quite good. Richard Hatch however did an excellent job in the movie, probably the best i have ever seen him do. Overall i thought the movie was great and by far worth the 3 dollars you pay to watch it. I would recommend that everybody gives this movie a chance and watches it, you may be vary surprised.