Impostor

An amazing subject that deserved a screenplay with fewer plot holes and better production quality. Impostor looks like it was knocked out in three weeks in a B-movie studio. It would have been a pleasant surprise if it were a big-budget Eastern European sci-fi flick. As a Hollywood blockbuster based on a story by Philip K. Dick, however, it’s a dud. It gets three stars only for the dynamic directing, thanks to which we’re never bored for even a second. (02/17/2003)

The only good thing about this film is its depressing ending. Otherwise, it’s cheap slog with terrible visual effects and shot without a shred of inventiveness. A lot more could have been squeezed out of a source material as interesting as Dick’s. Gary Sinise hasn't made anything good in years, and Impostor, which he even produced, is further proof of his decline. The only positive is that Madeleine Stowe is still beautiful. For her and for the satisfactory ending, I’m giving two stars. (06/22/2003)

Here I would blame the writer and director. With a very well put together cast, it would definitely be possible to raise Impostor higher than just being average and uncertain. Unfortunately, the twist of the story is so obvious that a potential second viewing is almost out of the question and it becomes pointless, even though the fundamental idea was more than solid. (04/27/2007)