giftakis

I had no knowledge of any backstory (such that it could be a spin-off, based on some other property, or that it could have be an original concept), so my first impression was strictly from the title, "Tom Swift."

Because of "Tom," it reminded me of the "Tom Strong" comic books. A science hero, like Doc Savage or Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon or Adam Strange. In those stories, "Tom Strong" is a strong, confident scientist/adventurer, surrounded by equally-abled family and friends, solving mysteries, and always leaving the world in better state. This is what I thought this show would be.

Alas, except for being a science hero and being surrounded by equally-abled family and friends, Tom Swift is an unlikable, arrogant genius...maybe best described as self-centred and douchey, a spoiled prince. And the rest of show seems to happily support this view of the central hero, and revolve successfully around him, and this is probably the most unbelievable and undesirable aspect.

In the end, I don't care about him, nor his reasons for doing what he does. So why watch?

...now if it actually had been based on the "Tom Strong" comic books....

A standard Night Court episode, but takes place mostly outside the courtroom. The jokes are cheesy and somewhat contrived; as mentioned, a standard episode.

But a brilliant performance by a young Don Cheadle. He has the same style of sarcastic jokes as the rest of the cast, but he delivers those with the same intensity and honesty as his serious deliveries. He truly shines, and clear to see how an confident actor compares to the regular & guest comedic actors in the episode.

Good movies & TV shows must always start with a good story with strong characters. Sadly, this show lacks both of those.

Many series always try to introduce as much of its "universe" into the pilot episode, and this show is no different, but this time could have been better used giving the plot some important: existence.

Some of the characters seem interesting, surrounded by a "I wonder what happens next" aura, but not enough and not tied together in any form.

Although not trying to hammer too heavily on the show, but the special effects are both terrible (early 90's TV-style, rendered on a home computer) and slightly confusing (I don't think the actors were told what the effects would be, nor how to react).

Finally, how did these classic and well-respected actors get attached to this show? Was there some sort of blackmail involved, a professional deception, or possibly deals to avoid jail time due to tax evasion? This is very unclear, as the performances are flat, confused, and disjointed (with the exception of Robert Picardo, who delivers a heartfelt dialogue...although it also seems unattached to whatever passes for a plot).

Well, some people liked this movie, either as a plain horror/thriller or some twisted, little sci-fi flick.

I could read between the lines and saw the commentary on society's own cruelty, and how we can devolve to our baser states quite rapidly (whether you are an 'infected' or normal person). Also, how the thin veneer of civilisation can be punctured by the smallest thing to show the truer side of man.

But to advertise this movie as "scary as hell" or "an unexpected terror" or "original and provocative"...I don't think so.

I think I saw this movie before. A handful of "post-apocalyptic" stories where survivors struggle to find *whatever*, and even in "The Omega Man" (Heston kicks some serious infected butt!). So I can't call this movie original.

I have a number of problems with the storyline, scenario, pace, and ending (I guess it had to have a happy ending...but did it?), but at least one thing makes up for all that--I'll never have to see it again. ...until they do a sequel, called [wait for it...] "another 28 Days Later", which will star Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy. Whoops, that's a rip off of another movie.

As per usual, the preview trailers and television adverts lead me to believe that this was either a full-boar comedy, or some sappy love story (gotta love those marketing editors).

I'll admit that I'm a Paltrow fan, but I loved the performances of everyone in the cast, from Paltrow's cheap-air girlfriends, to Candice Bergan's 'superwoman', and Mike Myers' wonderful 'eye'ful persona.

Although, the characters are superficial, with no hidden undertones or undue complexity, with such a simple story, that offers no great surprises, this makes the movie flow well with character development leading logically from one scene to the next. The editing is well-done, with wonderful material clearly left on the editing-room floor (judging from the 'blooper' reel during the credits).

For someone that went to see a movie for the sake of just having an entertaining evening (rather than learning about myself or the universe), I truly enjoyed this movie. I enjoy when Hollywood takes a few minutes to take a group of talented actors, a simple 'can't go wrong' script, and make a movie that can appeal to a wide audience. 'View from the Top' fits the bill just fine. ...but I hope Myers was given a couple bottles of eye drops after shooting this flick (ouch!).

8/10 (1 extra point because I loved the 'Royalty' remix of 'Family')