Impostor

I watched the feature length "director's cut", then viewed the 37 minute short version on the dvd. The short film is much better! It's more faithful to the PKD story and captures the theme of identity and illusion vs reality more concisely. It's essentially the beginning and ending of the feature w/additional scenes that flesh out the characters. The short makes Olham a little more contradictory - he tells his wife that his project is a good thing, then he questions what he's doing with his friend at the Project. What's missing is the interminable chase that's been done better in innumerable films (see The Running Man for example). Vincent D'Onofrio is a particularly good villain who's not really a villain (or is he?)......................

5.5 out of 10

Impostor was the first of 2002's futuristic thrillers (the other two being Minority Report and the Equilibrium) and it's also easily the weakest, which is no surprise when you consider this is essentially nothing more than a blown-up short film. Not surprisingly, critics were harsh on this one, and while many of the complaints are valid, Impostor is still a bit better than its reputation.

The film's concept, that of a seemingly normal man accused of being a replicant, is a fascinating one, but it's unfortunately drowned by director Gary Fleder's obsession with shaky camera movements and quick cuts. The script, written by a committee (or at least a group of people who had a hand in it), suffers from too many logical flaws to fully work as the cerebral sci-fi it obviously aspires to be. Most importantly, the question of identity and what it means to be human is never fully addressed and only touched upon briefly.

But flawed as the film is, the cast is solid, with Sinise delivering yet again another terrific performance, and the special effects are actually convincing (the cityscapes are genuinely awe-inspiring). The movie's fast pace ensures it's never dull and there are even a few exciting action sequences (most notably the hospital fight/chase). But best of all is the climactic plot twist, a no-holds barred surprise that boosts the film up a notch. As a whole, the movie is mostly middling, but there are enough inspired moments to make this an enjoyable viewing.

This movie has gotten a bad rap mostly from folks who just didn't get it. Of all the movies based on Philip K Dick stories, this one actually is most true to the plot line. And as a fan of Philip K Dick I give this movie a lot of credit for that. He visualizes a dark, grim future world at war with aliens and the fear and confusion that comes from the impostor accusations. The movie reflects that very well. They did add some material just to make it a full length feature flick, since the original literary work is a short story. Sinise is excellent, Stowe is pretty and sensual as usual and D'Onofrio is over the top , as usual. A good cast, good photography and an interesting set design. I give the movie high marks, and recommend it especially to any fans of Philip K Dick.

The previously posted comment for this film would have successfully steered me away from it... If I weren't such a huge fan of "Criminal Intent" (Vincent D'Onofrio) and "Monk" (Tony Shalhoub) that I had to see it anyway.

I wondered throughout the movie, "Is this guy (Gary Sinise) a robot or NOT???" The sets and direction (not to mention the performances of Gary Sinise and Vincent D'Onofrio, which were intense) sucked me in. D'Onofrio makes a fabulous driven investigator. Shalhoub's role was small, but I was too busy grooving on the plot to care. My one regret in the performances is that Madeline Stowe didn't have much to do, except alternate between the roles of a stereotypical uber-doctor and a limpid, grieving wife. The one scene that hints at her acting talent occurs when she confronts her husband at the abandoned park.

Granted, the film does start out like it's going to be typical sci-fi schlock, but once it was past the first 15 minutes, I almost forgot it's science fiction.

The bottom line: This movie WORKED for me! 9 / 10 stars

This movie has a low rating for a lot of very good reasons. The main user comment on the IMDb home page (at least as of now as I write this, John DeSando's) spells them out well. It's a failure.

But--there's a real gem here. What happened was, they set out to make a short, the studio liked it for good reason, had the film makers expand it to a feature-length film, and the end product was the dog of film that failed with critics and audiences and goes down in history as a big collection of mistakes.

But if you rent the DVD, the original short is on there. It's well worth renting just for that. It's riveting, tense and provocative. Really ALL the problems users such as John DeSando rightfully point out (quoting him "a plot twist you can see all the way from Mars....The plot holes are as many as dot our own moon....") are in the parts of the feature-length version that are added.

Rent the DVD. Go right to the short. Skip the long version. Too bad the stupid studio had to ruin something good. (Shocking, I know--a movie studio took something good and tried to milk it for more and ended up spoiling it. Hard to believe, but true.)