Creature (1998) User Reviews (42)

Good cast, interesting looking creature.....dismal ending

[HaemovoreRex · 6/10 · 5 June 2007]

From the author of Jaws comes this so, so tale of a military experiment that splices the DNA of a human and a Great White shark.

Yes, predictably the resulting uncontrollable beastie eventually gets loose and subsequently goes about terrorising a small beach side community.

Craig T. Nelson and the ever sexy Kim Cattrall headline and equate themselves well in their respective roles whilst the rather splendid shark creature is supplied by the fx genius of Stan Winston (who was also responsible for the wonderful looking Pumpkinhead).

A fairly run of the mill affair overall, this does nonetheless contain a fair number of exciting scenes to lift it above the average mark although the ending it has to be said is sadly a particular let down!

Final verdict? Fellow fans of aquatic beastie films could certainly do a lot worse than to give this a go.

Mildly diverting

[ebeckstr-1 · 6/10 · 12 March 2019]

I recommend doing several loads of laundry, and then folding it while watching this movie. I actually don't mean that in a bad way. It is a mildly entertaining, if overly long, 3 hours or so.

As you can tell from the very mixed reviews, whether one likes this movie might depend on your mood and your willingness to suspend disbelief and take Creature on its own terms. As other reviewers have noted, this is Peter Benchley ripping off himself in subpar manner. On the other hand, the creature is kind of cool, there are some really nifty sets, including abandoned tunnels, abandoned laboratories, abandoned military facilities, foggy swamps, and mysterious, shark tooth-shaped Islands silhouetted against the full moon, and for the most part the acting is more than adequate. Taking it for what it is, I would give it 5 1/2 or 6 Stars.

Note, regarding the DVD: As of this writing, 2019, Amazon was selling a 2-disc DVD set released by Olive Films, for around $12. The picture is excellent, surprisingly detailed and crisp, and presented in the original 1:78 widescreen. The sound is also very clear. Unfortunately, and unforgivably, there is no closed captioning. Not surprisingly, there are no special features. I do like the fact that it is presented with parts 1 and 2 each on its own DVD (labeled Night 1 and Night 2, which is kind of neat), so compression ratios are fine. I also appreciated the fact that they presented each part in its entirety, including opening and closing credits, unlike, for instance, the commonly found DVD release of Salem's Lot, which eliminated closing credits of part 1 and opening credits of part 2, combining it into one feature.

Horror "Creature" mutates into a comedy

[MartianOctocretr5 · 5/10 · 28 May 2007]

If you need a good laugh, here's the comedy for you.

Let's start with the characters, which are all stereotypes or over-the-top whack jobs. After 25 years of not doing anything, an escaped mutant beast finally decides to eat something, so mutilated corpses start floating to the surface on the beaches of a Caribbean island. No sea monster movie is complete without the dumb local cop who ignores a scientist's warnings about the problem. The idiot teen angst son who just keeps getting in his Daddy's hair, needs to be put on time out. Local voodoo dancers that look like they're practicing for a primal scream contest. Military with enough fire power to blast the Western Hemisphere to rubble, but if brains were dynamite, they wouldn't have enough to blow their noses.

But the best is the paranoid beach comber ex-scientist (who didn't age at all in 25 years). I love his "under the canoe" playhouse, where he stares wide-eyed at anything he sees, and whines incoherent gibberish hysterically.

There really was a decent original idea for a story, but the director throws so much extra stuff at you, it's buried under a Caribbean Sea of dead-end sub plots and meaningless banter. The story suggests an evil secret involving the creature, but instead of exploring this, you'll just see pointless padding, like the romance with an island beauty liking the knucklehead kid. The two scientists rekindling their dead marriage serves no purpose either.

I pity Craig T. Nelson, who took the thing seriously, and tried to make the most of his character. The director is to blame for the weak construction of the film which ends up being unintentionally funny. There are a few good moments involving the creature, but not enough. Most of the time you'll see the increasingly obvious red dye to simulate an attack, or the beast standing two feet away from a victim staring dumbly. Entertaining stuff, but as comedy, not horror.

Bad TV adaptation of a good book

[dbborroughs · 3/10 · 7 May 2005]

The source material of this TV movie is a novel called White Shark. It was a failure when published since the public thought it was about a great white shark, instead of what it was, namely a crazed tale about a Nazi experiment re-awakened. The novel's plot played like the movie Shock Waves, but gorier and loopier. It was a great read thanks to Peter Benchley's storytelling ability. It was nothing if not a wonderful guilty pleasure that would have made a great movie had they filmed it straight...

...The problem was the producers couldn't leave well enough alone and decided to take a grade Z plot line that worked because of the authors skill, and change it so that it was a grade Z plot line in the hands of a grade Z writer and director. The result is a laughably bad over long movie that has a laughable but cool monster and little else. This is a movie to get drunk and make fun of. Its a so good its great film, or would be except its way way too long.

"It wasn't supposed to do that!" - Creature pt 1...

[doc_zombie · 9 July 2000]

I'm a sucker for monsters, so I decided to check out the first part of this mini-series, and I was marginally impressed. There were intelligent performances from the principles, despite the alteration of the original book's interesting WW2 origins of the creature, their limited dialogue and the stock disbelieving authority figure and local slimeball characters that show up in every other creature feature. Kim Cattrall is not only visually very pleasing, but she is a very skilled actress - hopefully part 2 will allow her to do more than the usual for a woman in a horror movie. As a rehash of a 50's creature-feature I found this fun, but not too taxing on the brain. Stan Winston's creature was nicely designed, but the scale White Shark puppet was incredible (speaking from the point of view of someone with zoological training)! Our titular Antihero moves nicely, though is still a bit too Black-Lagoon-ish. I knew the legs would be there, but I didn't expect them to grow in 20 seconds flat! My hopes are high, but this post-modern prometheus can only get worse when the army show up. I just hop e the Creature puts up a fight. So far, just for rubber work and nostalgic feelings, I'll give it 6 out of 10.

Pretty good thriller/horror combination

[Krogh71 · 5/10 · 28 November 1999]

I rented this in the local video store since it was based on a Peter Benchley (Jaws) book. I didn't know it was a mini TV series but once it was started, it kept me in front of the TV till the end. Craig T. Nelson delivers an excellent performance and it has got some pretty decent creature effects by Stan Winston. The plot is somewhat like Deep Blue Sea. The Navy performs experiments on Dolphins but something goes wrong and one of the test subject escapes. It reappears 25-30 years later (how old do dolphins get??) and starts spreading terror. Better than your average action movie, I rated it 6/10.

Insufferably long

[eddax · 2/10 · 15 November 2002]

I watched this movie on Sci-Fi and it lasted 3 hours (including commercials), which means they had to pad at least an hour of fodder into this run-of-the-mill monster flick. The suspense wasn't there - it certainly can't be compared to 'Jaws.' The creature wasn't particularly scary - think a walking 'Jaws' shark. The film was riddled with cliches - the disbelieving townsfolk, the belligerent military, etc. The film's only salvation is the fine lead actors, especially a pre-'Sex and the City' Kim Cattrall. But it is all they can do to not let the film drag them down with it. 2/10.

This movie fails so hard that it approaches win from the other side.

[cinderella321 · 7/10 · 13 February 2009]

Grab some popcorn and skittles 'cause this movie is epic! Creature is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and as such I consider it one of the best. Nothing speaks to a true B-rated sci-fi fanatic like government cover-ups, outlandish monsters, strained family ties, and the manipulation the human genome. And, Ladies and Gentlemen let me tell you: this movie does not just speak, it sings. I would recommend this film to anyone who consider themselves a connoisseur of the B-rated genre. Yes, Creature is about 3 hours long (with commercials) but the ending is pure poetry and very worth the wait. Creature is a classic cross-section of the epic sci-fi; as such I recommend that it be viewed at 2:00am - no earlier.

Just pathetic.

[lenderbroker · 1/10 · 19 September 2005]

This movie should never have been released, it's an absolute failure on all levels except for some of the acting. You'll find yourself cringing at seeing recognizable actors in a movie this worthless, I can't imagine that anyone associated with the making of this movie ever brings that fact up on their resume.

I had assumed that Peter Benchley had some talent as a writer after seeing Jaws, but I guess he was just a one-hit-wonder. It is too bad that he didn't have the sense to burn the manuscript and take up wood carving instead.

Give the "Creature" a shiny sword and he could be a monster of the week on the Power Rangers. The movie could have worked as a comedy if they had at least sped things up a bit, it is so slow and tedious that it can't even be enjoyed as a B-movie train wreck.

Good action, but too much family morals

[nilshenry · 6/10 · 26 July 2002]

After Peter Benchley wrote «Jaws», he never actually managed to make a completely new original story. With the sheriff who refuses to believe in the hero who tries to warn people about the killing monster, the bad guy who mocks the hero, and the finding of a shark who everybody believes is the one who killed everybody but actually didn't, «The Creature» is just too much similar to «Jaws». The only real interesting bit is that this isn't a shark but a crossing between a shark and a dolphin. That reminds me very much about «Deep Blue Sea», but since «The Creature» was made first, that's forgivable.

Another thing that really bugs me in this movie, is the family morals bit. Except for the sheriff and the bad guy, everybody is really nice to each other, the father son relationship is a great example of how a good family should be, and the whole world is just a great place to live in. Well, the military people are real jerks, but luckily they don't ruin too much of this impression.

On the other hand, one shouldn't take this movie too seriously either. It's actionpacked, something new turns up in the middle of the film, and if you disregard the logical faults that often turn up, there's more than enough stuff to entertain you all the way through, and that's pretty impressive for more than three hours of sharks.

The opening sequences are really good.

6/10

A Mad Magazine spoof of Jaws!

[cptnhook13 · 2/10 · 6 November 2004]

I don't want to beat a dead squid, but Peter Benchley needs to get over his obsession with scary creatures in dark water. Put the pen down and go for a swim!

The writers covered it all - opening scene of a mysterious brutal death beneath the surface that outrages the locals, an under-appreciated 'expert' in marine biology (complete with sharkbait son), the skeptical townsfolk, the local police chief that doesn't want to ruin the reputation of his beaches, lots of fog at random moments of suspense, etc...

The special effects are, well, not especially effective and the acting is annoying at best. If you want to enjoy this trainwreck, play the 'Chase' drinking game (Craig T. Nelson's character is Chase) and take a swig every time someone yells it out. You'll be feeling good by the second commercial break!

Availability??

[jcdslayer · 8/10 · 18 May 2005]

Of all the comments I've seen so far, not one person has mentioned the availability of this movie! Has it been released to DVD or is the production company holding it ransom. I'm a big fan of JAWS and thought the design and creation of the "creature" itself was outstanding. Human casts aside, that shark did it's job. Now years later, no one can find it on DVD. IF it is out there, could someone e-mail me ([e-mail]) and let me know!? I am seriously interested in watching this movie again but have no way of finding it. So, please, if anyone knows anything about it being on DVD, please let me know. Thank you.

Solid creature-feature flick

[ODDBear · 7/10 · 11 December 2007]

As a TV mini-series, Creature ranks pretty much as first rate.

Although hardly original story wise, it's still an interesting creature feature flick that doesn't have too many lulls despite it's three hour running time. There are moments you could easily see get the axe should this be pruned down to feature length but overall the film runs along smoothly and at an adequate pace.

It's quite atmospheric at times and suspenseful and special effects are top notch. There's not any gore here and a seasoned horror fan can easily see where some red grue and more could have been spliced in. But no matter, it works despite that. The cast is also quite good with Craig T. Nelson in top form and Kim Cattrall looking lovely as ever.

Verdict: 7 out of 10. A very good time filler on a slow night.

Miliarty Correctness

[chiefehrman · 2/10 · 21 April 2006]

I was watching this and laughing "They are doing what the Navy has trained them to do". One there are no women on SEAL Teams and two the Admiral I think it was was calling the Team Leader "Captain" which is highly unlikely. Due to the fact he was probably a LT as a Captain in the Navy is equal to a full bird in the Army or Marine Corp. It reeks of that other stinker "The Chuabacobra" (Pardon the spelling). That was what it looked like to me. I like Craig T. Nelson so it can make bearable to watch and yes there was the "Jaws" catch with the head floating to the surface. Did you ever notice that the girls always out run the guys too. This is so formula.

Like a chum line in a septic tank...

[cyclone259 · 17 September 2004]

I managed to miss (purposely) this 'movie' when it originally aired and I should have heeded my own warning.

Someone said this movie was a 'gem'.. well, some gems need to be re-buried and covered by 48 billion tons of rock. I was saddened to see how the once semi-popular stars Craig T. Nelson (the Poltergeist series, Coach) and Kim Catrall (Sex in the City, Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country) had waded into the dismal abyss of c-grade films. This film has it all, a dull plot, terrible acting, REALLY cheap effects. Wow... A shark that can walk. I remember the unfunny cartoon with the same premise: Jabberjaw, from way back in the 70's. The biggest difference is we were SUPPOSED to laugh at Jabberjaw.

Something tells me that Nelson was the real loser in this affair since some people can't recover from a somewhat tepid career after a run of moderate successes. Catrall is a decent actress, at least she had a longtime stint on the beforementioned 'Sex in the City', which is currently in reruns. The crazy islander / former lab technician looked like he'd sniffed about one too many tubes of Testor's Model Glue or worked in a factory that manufactures Sharpie's. The 'creature' was incredibly bad, which made it difficult to buy into the whole premise.

I'll save my time and not even comment on Creature 2, because I turned it off about 5 minutes into it. I'm at the point at wondering if the Sci-Fi Channel's budget is so meager it can't afford to show a decent A OR B-list film, they're even worse at making their own productions.

Pleasant Surprise

[TedMichaelMor · 3/10 · 10 July 2010]

Veteran director Stuart Gillard gives us a good television movie with Craig Nelson and Kim Catrall giving top-notch performances. Rockne S. O'Bannon wrote a tight adaptation of Peter Benchley's implausible novel. However, once one accepts the improbable creature, the rest of the story works well. It is made well. It entertained me. I very much enjoyed seeing the movie.

Further, location shooting in St. Lucia gives this movie a good look. The images are often beautiful in ways that do not distract from the narrative. Camera work involves careful use of positioning, careful movement of cast within otherwise ordinary shots, and good panning. I like the editing. Special effects are well done. I think that the monster creature looks good.

The film has a good pace with humour and slowly building moments of terror. Megalyn Echikunwoke enriches the look of the film. I like the soundtrack.

Middling TV miniseries is content to copy rather than innovate

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 28 November 2017]

I'm guessing that Hallmark's TV miniseries version of Peter Benchley's THE BEAST was successful enough for them to commission this follow-up series, about a government-created half-man half-fish monster that not only kills people in the water but on land too. It sounds preposterous and it is, but in the hands of Hallmark it's a ponderous and slowly-paced affair, lacking the same kind of atmosphere as THE BEAST (which at least recalled JAWS favourably at times). This one's content to rip off ALIENS for all of the main action scenes, and although cast members Kim Cattrall, Craig T. Nelson, and Colm Feore try their hardest and Stan Winston's effects are, as ever, fantastic, it's middling at best.

nice television creature feature

[trashgang · 4/10 · 20 March 2011]

First of all, this was made for television. So gorehounds do know to stay away from this flick. It was made in two parts, each part taking in a whole flick. I also noticed that a lot of Jaws freaks were searching this talked about creature feature. But it surely isn't about the great white. It's a combination between horror and science fiction. But don't think you will see some kind of Alien rip-off. It do has some scary moments but the attacks are filmed off-screen. It never is bloody or even messy like Jaws. By clocking in over 150 minutes it sometimes takes too long to keep you attracted. If they had made it a 90 minute feature it would have been very nice. Kim Catrall is in it and is showing of in diving gear for the 'sex and the city' fans. The monster, not Kim I mean, is okay, you can see that it was some kind of shark turning in a creature like that one in Creature From The Black lagoon. I didn't hate it, but it's okay to watch with your kids

CREATURE

[TCurtis9192 · 7/10 · 26 February 2020]

"CREATURE" (1998, Gillard) is a good film/mini series despite its cack handed similarities to "JAWS" (1975, Spielberg) and occasional plot nonsense.

This is a spirited effort to do something different with an ageing plot and for that it deserves some lauding. Stan Winston's effects are just amazing and I don't think the titular creature is at all stupid. On the contrary, before it has become a walking shark and after it is incredibly well done and present enough for the film to watched for it if nothing else.

Pros: 1. The score is something special.

2. The acting is good, especially Giancarlo Esposito as werewolf.

3. The creature is fantastic.

4. It is made in a similar style as "THE BEAST" (1996, Bleckner), another Benchley adaptation that features wonderful beast effects, good acting and great score that harkens back to Benchley's benchmark "JAWS".

Cons: 1. If you have read the book this isn't worth watching as an adaptation, rather a complete reworking. The only things it shares are the inexplicable time gap between when the monster was created and when it actually begins to kill (to be honest, in the novel it is more ridiculous of a gap as the nazis created it in WW2, whereas as in the film the US Navy creates it during the Vietnam war) and, of course, a walking shark man. In the novel, however, the shark man is a man who has been extensively operated on (making the time gap of events even more inexplicable) and in this film it starts out life as a beefy shark thing.

2. Certain plot elements are so old that they are no longer tried and true but are just trying. Here we have a hero who is hated and blamed for things that aren't his fault, his only backup being one local who sacrificed his reputation with his neighbours by standing up for the hero, and of course his estranged wife and son. Then there's the red herring shark corpse, presented by one of the villains, a good looking angry young gym goer who trap fishes and abuses mentally challenged werewolf whenever he can etc.

3. You will probably have heard most of the script before.

I prefer "CREATURE" to Benchley's "WHITE SHARK" by a long way. I listed the adaptation aspect under cons but that's only because, as an adaptation, it is nothing like the source material. In truth the novel, from what I remember, veers into silly James Bond-esque territory with the chain smoking old Jew who has to breathe and smoke via a device in his neck (or possibly chest) and a stupid monster that's more interesting to think about than read about. But it's well written.

I read a review on here that attempts to make the case that "CREATURE" is a rip off of "CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON" (1954, Arnold) because both feature a walking fish creature. CFBL was by no means the originator of the Gill man and "CREATURE" bears more resemblance to "STREET SHARKS" than CFBL.

I recommend this film.

Best movie ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[b_shaughn · 1/10 · 14 August 2005]

I watched the greatest film of all-time last night in my un-sleepiness. It was called "Creature," and it starred Craig T. Nelson of Coach fame, as Dr. Chase. Dr. Chase gets called into an island community where wither people are reported missing or they are found in bits and pieces. I don't know this informations, as I came in halfway through the movie. Anwyay, for some reason coach is upset and needs to find a new defensive coordinator before the big game or something. At the point where I came in, coach's son in the movie was trying to get this lady to understand that coach was worried about the people on the island.

As it turns out there is a secret military base on the island... I don't know how this is important. I later find out the creature was created in the secret military base or something. The secret military base had something to do with the origin of the creature. Anyway, I'm a little scared, because menacing music is playing while the kid is talking to Coach, and then... the creature strikes! I must say at this point that I believe I came into "Creature' at perfect moment, because "Creature" is a 4-HOUR PROGRAM!!!!

Anyway, the Creature is an amphibious shark, that is obviously a plastic model that doesn't move. I know this by the way every scene with the Creature is shot, and so will you. This either proves movie making is not rocket science, or the Creature was created with a budget somewhere around $75.

the Creature really looks like "Trogdoor the Burninator" of Homestar Runner fame, right down to the beefy arms coming out the back of his neck. Also, in this movie, you can't fight off the creature even though he appears to be about 4'6 and totally inflexible. The attack scenes are just god-awful

Anyway, after a while I noticed Samantha from Sex and the City was in the movie. Apparently she answered an ad in the back of a dirty magazine and was on the island in order to shoot some sort of film with the Creature or something. Right about that time I fell asleep. The movie was definitely my favorite made-for-TV moment of all-time.

Decent if unimpressive miniseries

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 6/10 · 13 May 2016]

Studying sharks on a tropical island, a scientist finds that recent spate of shark attacks in the area are more than the locals' claim of a rogue shark when they discover it to be an escaped military project and must convince the authorities to help him stop it.

This one here wasn't an overall bad miniseries but does have some solid points about it. One of the few areas that works here is the fact that this one manages to run through a lot of the genre's clichés and trappings into itself, feeling more often that not as a true work rather than a shameless homage. From the attacks on the locals that are tried to be explained as being done by something else, the attitude of the villagers when they think they've caught it and the subsequent desire to cut it open to investigate, the gradual realization through effective and realistic evidence to prove something's out there only for no response to come from the authorities until they witness it with their own eyes and finally putting their child's life in danger to be able to see the truth that must be arrived at no matter how much they want to disagree with are all plot points brought up here and yet it never really feels as though it's going through the motions with them. It works them all nicely into the rather enjoyable amount of action here where it features some rather fun and exciting scenes of the creature at play here both in the water as well as on-land, with the early sea-based attacks being quite good with the locals getting ambushed while the land attacks are great with the confrontation in the underground tunnels and a fun wipe-out of the troops out in the swamp-lands surrounding the island which makes for some really exciting scenes here. Given that the creature always looks good rather than cheesy when it shows up with the realistic make-up work and even a fantastic finish, there's a lot to like here. The main flaws here are mostly based on the feature coming from it's origin status as there's little reason here to make the film a real miniseries as this one really doesn't deserve that. The story-line is so full of clichés, from the secret government project gone awry to the reconciled couple which comes together and the mysterious stranger who knows more than he lets on in order to keep the story going on nonsense that usually plague these kinds of movies where it's not so much homaging the past as instead it's just plain irritating to have to keep going for these issues. They hold the film's pacing down to where it has to shoehorn them into the film to build up the overall running time and then rushing along through the few scattered action scenes here since it really doesn't seem all that suited for such a format that was presented here with this one not really deserving of being a miniseries of such length. As well, the other issue here concerns the film's series of false statements regarding so much of its science and technology here, from the inane gene-splicing at the heart of the original experiment, the creation of the new creature here, the different physiological problems associated with the creature being released and the late-twist where they find out the big dangerous secret about the creature that's just painfully stupid. It's science here is pretty troubled and sticks out along with the pacing issues to really hold this one down.

Rated Unrated/PG-13: Violence, Language and violence-against- animals.

A could-have-been-good snooze-fest

[kyle_michaelsen · 2/10 · 7 November 2008]

Oh. My. God. This. Movie. Lasts. For. Ever.

It's not the longest movie ever made by a long shot, but holy crap, it feels like it. The concept itself is fairly interesting, if not overly original, but it's handled horribly. The storytelling is weak, and the dialogue weaker. The monster itself is somewhat scary until they actually show it. It looks so laughably pathetic that it's impossible to be even the slightest bit spooked thereafter. The director and writers for this movie also clearly have very little notion of how to create good suspense. If you decide you want to watch this movie, place a 'dunce cap' on your head and go sit in the corner for an hour. Then either read the book or watch Jaws or something. Hell, Jaws: The Revenge (and everyone knows how well THAT movie came out) might be better and more interesting than this film.

Totally Underrated!

[vip-danii · 10/10 · 25 March 2013]

I don't understand the low rating. This is one of my favorite movies. I saw it for free, but this is actually one of the VERY few movies I WOULD pay to see.

The movie is quite long, but it doesn't drag -- it's suspenseful, keeps you engaged. The acting is very good. The editing is great also. And what a nicely-crafted monster!

I have seen plenty of sea-monster movies, but this really is one of the best.

I see this movie is being compared to "Jaws" quite heavily... Well, I did not like "Jaws" so much; this one is a lot more interesting. To me, it wasn't similar to "Jaws" in any way, except sharing a common theme (the presence of a sea-monster).

Well worth watching, definitely.

Street Shark gone bad

[Ekul1021 · 7/10 · 8 March 2020]

Well, I remember this was aired on TV and boy this movie made for TV was called "Street Shark gone bad" especially the cartoon was released the same time as well. Now the movie takes on the usual of "man messing with DNA" and you get this messy of a movie. The characters are pretty much forgettable as Craig T. Nelson tries to be the good father/good ethical marine biologist to his ex wife and son in this turkey of a movie. He does do a great job but even he can't save this movie. If you have watched jaws, it's the typical, rogue shark killer but in a dumb nonsense story. Otherwise, this is just another bad movie to add to the resume and something to watch while being bored at home.

Why so long and tedious?

[harryplinkett14 · 2/10 · 11 January 2019]

Action scenes are poorly directed, confusing, and outright boring. They even turn to comedy at times. And all the endless filler is just pointless drivel, with boring characters, zero plot, and sometimes laughable repetition of cliches. The monster itself is ridiculous, but at least Stan Winston did a good job with making something so ridiculous look at least respectable. But still, whenever it's on screen, it looks like some joke that escaped from an Asylum production. Why on earth did a plotless film that struggles with action scenes insist on 'developing' the non-existing plot and inserting all these awkward action scenes? Were they trying to get the audience to go to sleep? All in all, it' one of those TV movies you might endure if you have nothing better to do very late in the evening, and you literally need something to keep you mildly entertained, and nothing in terms of good filmmaking. I would have given this one star, but Winston's effort is worth at least another star.