Rating: 
Summary: I've seen better film on a sink full of old dishwater
Review: The plot is tired. I'm sure it was terribly original way back when Phillip K. Dick wrote it fourty or more years ago, but we've seen elaborations on elaborations of this story. the characters are one dimentional stereotypes. The futuristic setting is poorly shot, poorly lit and uninspired (I guess the future is in some sort of power shortage). The 'twist ending' is predictable and anticlimactic. Again, we've seen this bit of 'storytelling' more than once before. This film was made for hardcore science fictions fans, but it uses hardcore science fiction cliches. You draw the conclusion. ....
Rating: 
Summary: Commendable adaptation with ups and downs.
Review: "Here was my first story on the topic of: Am I a human? Or am I just programmed to believe I am human? When you consider that I wrote this back in 1953, it was, if I may say so, a pretty damn good new idea in sf. Of course, by now I've done it to death. But the theme still preoccupies me. It's an important theme because it forces us to ask: What is a human? And -- what isn't." -- Philip K. Dick When Philip K. Dick wrote "The Impostor" in 1953, the United States was at the height of McCarthyism, when communism was a great threat to our government, who, in turn, sought to weed out those in favor of the communist ideals. His short story is very much like that dark period in our nation's history, employing the same premise with a science fiction twist. His many works have made their way to the silver screen in the past decades, with such futuristic extravaganzas as "Total Recall" and "Blade Runner," and even still keep popping up here and there as time moves on. And now we have "Impostor," a movie which seems to capture the essence of the above quote by Dick with its all-too-familiar territory. At the time of its publication, the story could be looked at as fresh and inviting; as a movie in the new millennium, when the science fiction genre has become one of the most repetitive and redundant of all movie types, it seems like another run-of-the-mill futuristic thriller with lots of running that treads on the notion of whether or not its main character is who he says he is. And yet, the film's plot is still just as intriguing as the story on which it is based. Set in 2079, where Earth is in constant battle with the alien race Centauri, the planet is little more than a war zone, where dome-protected cities are surrounded by endless vistas of devastated wastelands. Living in one of these cold, metallic communities is Spencer John Olham (Gary Sinise), a weapons specialist who is hunted down by the Earth Security Agency and accused of being a member of the Centauri. Despite his reassurance that he is being falsely targeted, the E.S.A. continues with their plan to extract the bomb supposedly hidden within Spencer's heart, at which point he breaks free and becomes a fugitive out to prove his innocence. Had "The Impostor" been made into a film in earlier years, it may have been a bigger success. I think the failure of this movie to generate much interest in audiences stems from the well-worn paths that thrillers and the sci-fi genre have trodden even before the publication of Dick's story. The accusations made against Spencer, as well as his plight to prove himself to authorities, can de linked directly to "The Fugitive," while aliens who infiltrate Earth by posing as humans was done years ago in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Those not well acquainted with the short story or the author's works will find themselves at a loss. But, for those of us who have experienced "Impostor" with a knowledge of the author's themes and tactics, the film takes on a much bigger challenge of effectively creating the sense of paranoia and intensity so lovingly bestowed in the source material. For the most part, the film succeeds in doing just that, its futuristic appearance evoking a cold, stony dread that adds to the sense of claustrophobia as Spencer desperately searches for proof of his innocence. Settings such as the labyrinthine hospital, the underground tunnels, the "Star War"-like city structures, all add to the unease one feels as the story unfolds its mystery. Director Gary Fleder, who spun an intricate web in "Kiss the Girls" and served up serviceable thrills in last year's "Don't Say A Word," directs the material with a certain degree of energy needed to keep us involved in the story, while also giving the central mystery just enough appeal to intrigue us. Gary Sinise portrays Spencer just as he should be: as a human being that we come to care about and understand, his performance enriching the film's question of whether or not he is who he says, or rather believes, he is. The film's supporting cast is first-rate, and though much of the film is spent with Sinise, the performances are worth mentioning. The vastly-underrated Madeleine Stowe makes an appearance as Spencer's wife, Maya, convincing us of her grief over being torn between her husband and the law. Vincent D'Onofrio plays an E.S.A. agent out to retrieve Spencer with an earnestness and hardcore approach that is stellar, while Mekhi Phifer's performance as an outsider who aides Spencer back into the city is short-lived but commendable. As a result of the familiar plot devices that are no fault of its own, "Impostor" doesn't have the edge needed to make it a perfect movie. But I'd be lying if I said that it weren't an interesting adaptation of a wonderfully mystifying short story; in truth, the movie manages to capture the essence of what Dick hoped to deliver, and does so in a manner that deserves more praise than it has received.
Rating:
Summary: This movie was pathetic.
Review: Sorry, but I had this movie figured out within ten minutes. Talk about formulaic. Friends told me the visual effects were "awesome" but I was hard pressed to find anything that hadn't been done better in any number of other sci-fi thrillers. Hard to believe Gary Sinise got involved with this one. I'm not surprised Madeline Stowe was involved...her career has been on a downslide for years. The costume design was weak, set design weary, dim, and gray for no reason, and supporting actors like the military characters were forced.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Sci-Fi
Review: Ignore the professional movie critics and go see this one. Compared to Ghosts of Mars, last year's worst sci-fi, Imposter delivers. Although somewhat predictable, the acting is good, the premise intriguing, and the ending excellent. If you are a big sci-fi fan, you will like Imposter.
Rating: 
Summary: This movie is SO underrated
Review: Bad timing for release aside, this movie is really good! Gary Senise nails the character well and Vincent D'Onofrio makes an imposing tracker. The only problem I have with this movie is they could have put more into it. It seems a bit short to me. I know it was based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, but they could have had a little more fun with it. THE GOOD -
Acting: is cool and convincing.
CGI: Very good interfaces and space scenes.
Plot: Powerful and well planned.
Special info: SURPRISE ENDING! I will not say more. THE BAD -
Madeline Stowe: She needed more screentime thus we are left hoping we could have seen more of this beauty.
Film Length: Could have been longer, but I do love long movies like Braveheart. THE MIDDLE GROUND -
The World: essentially another post-apocalypse type planet Earth, but this time it is not Humanity that did it... I am leaving that open for you better enjoy the movie. I like the movie and it actually deserves 4 and a HALF stars but it is worthy of FIVE to me.
Rating: 
Summary: conventional sci-fi thriller
Review: If "Imposter" - the first official release of 2002 - is any indication of what we have to expect from this movie year, then we may find ourselves spending an inordinate amount of time perusing video store shelves searching for our cinematic entertainment in the upcoming twelve months. "Imposter" is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick ("Blade Runner," "Total Recall"), published in 1953. In this sci-fi tale set in 2079, the world has been enduring a decades-long bombardment by hostile aliens from the Alpha Centauri star system. To shield themselves from the incessant barrage of threatening missiles, the people of earth have erected huge protective domes over most of their major cities. One day, Spenser Olham (Gary Sinise), a highly respected scientist, finds himself suspected of being an alien replicant, one who has been sent by the Centauris to usurp the body and mind of the real Spenser and to assassinate a major government official. The chase is on, with Spenser being pursued, through the murky streets of a bombed-out city, by the government forces bent on annihilating him. We've certainly seen this man-on-the-run scenario numerous times before. It always seems to involve some poor schmuck having to race again the clock in an effort to prove his true identity before someone less sympathetic to his plight manages to take him out. "Imposter" is briefly interesting in its early stretches as the complexity of the plot is slowly revealed to us (as it is to Spenser). But, in very short order, the film turns into little more than an extended exercise in hide-and-go-seek, marking time till the turnabout "surprise" ending which, when it does finally arrive, fails to compensate for the tedium of much of what has come before. Actually, material similar to this was explored to much greater effectiveness a few years back in "The 6th Day," a film that actually engaged the audience in its is-he-or-isn't-he-a-replicant dilemma. Here we really don't care. Visually, the film is quite impressive at times but why-oh-why must the future always be depicted in such dank, murky terms? Has there ever been a film set in the future that DIDN'T feature a burnt out city populated by grungy, dirty-faced societal outcasts? Certainly, there hasn't been one since "Blade Runner" set the standard twenty long years ago. Except for the ending, "Imposter" offers precious little that is new or interesting.
Rating:
Summary: could have spent my time on better things...
Review: This is not a very good movie. The plot was very flat and unconvincing. A substantial amount of the events in the film took place at night, so the pictures were rather dark.
Overall, I believe the director could have done a much better job. My major mistake was to have seen this movie before reading the reviews here.
Rating:
Summary: guilty pleasure
Review: Probably the biggest accomplishment of this film is that Sony made a few more dollars by selling the "Starship Troopers" costumes to yet ANOTHER buyer (and threw in some stock footage to boot.) But, I'll go see any movie based on Philip K. Dick's stories and there was enough of the sensibility of his scenario-writing here to keep me watching. If you can catch a matinee and can accept more "Screamers" and less "Blade Runner," then you might enjoy this.
Rating:
Summary: Philip K. Dick gone wrong
Review: Impostor is another offering from Hollywood leveraging the science fiction works of the classic Philip K. Dick. In my opinion, only one of P.K.D.'s have translated well to the screen...Blade Runner. Most of P.K.D.'s works deal with confusion of identity or the replacement of real humans with artificial ones...sometimes both. Total Recall deals with a man who has his identity changed to fight a Mars resistance. Blad Runner deals with the elimination of artificial humans (replicants) who aren't allowed to have a permanent human identity. Impostor is the story of a brilliant weapons scientist named Spencer John Olham (Gary Sinise) that has been fighting the war with the Centauris by creating weapons of mass destruction. Spencer quickly finds out that he's not who he thinks he his. The government thinks he's an artificial human that has been planted in his place to assassinate the president. Vincent D'Onofrio plays the government agent who is trying to hunt Spencer down, and Madeleine Stowe plays Spencer's wife. The formula is pretty much the same as Total Recall...loving husband finds out he's not who he is, evil government agent chases him through futuristic cities, and he gets help from people on the other side of the tracks. The ending is very different, but it's all a familiar story. I'm not sure if this is P.K.D.'s fault for using the same premise in another work, or the screenplay writer's fault. The effects are very hit and miss, which is strange for a movie done by Industrial Light and Magic. This movie was supposedly in post production sometime in 2000, yet kept getting pushed. This gave ILM plenty of time to polish it up. Despite this, the opening shots showing the start of the Earth-Centauri war were pretty bad...comparable to a decent computer game cutscene. The effects do get progressively better as the film moves along. The acting is pretty run of the mill and the story moves along at a fair pace with a short running time of about 95 minutes. Impostor is not as bad as many of its reviews are saying, nor is it a good movie by any stretch. It's a story that we've seen before. I recommend that only hardcore sci-fi fan go check out a discount showing...everyone else just stay away until it comes out on video. Note that the upcoming flick Minority Report is also based on a Philip K. Dick work. This time it deals with invasion of identity/privacy when the government can tell who commits crimes and nabs the people before they commit said crime. Where Impostor looked completely average before I saw it, Minority Report looks very good. I expect to see more and more of P.K.D.'s works make it to the screen...with both success and disaster.
Rating:
Summary: One of 2002 worst movies of the year!
Review: One of 2002 worst movies of the year! Should of gone straight to DVD & video! Lame! Stupid! This movie was shelfed for over a year until Disney could find a dumping date to bring this to movie theaters. It should gone straight to DVD and video! This movie was very much a "paint by numbers" film for bad science fiction and movies in general.Not to mention it ripped off several other science fiction movies like "Total Recall","The Thing","Invasion of the Body Snatchers". and "Blade Runner'. I saw this movie today at the last matinee after I find it out it did not get into the Box Office top ten.Perhaps a bad marketing killed it at the movie theaters. The cast does what little they have in terms of a script. There even a "cat and mouse" game in the movie. I suspect that this movie will be on DVD very fast. Needless to say the audience was laughing out loud at this flop! I find hard to belive that with 2002 being only 6 days old,I'm already writing a review for one the worst films of the year. The cast all has done better work than this pathetic movie. This movie also a very close boardline "R" movie. The amount of swearing ,violence , and nudity almost make it a "R" movie.Maybe the MPAA was asleep when they rated this box office turkey?This film is just as bad as the movie "Supernova". Wait for this turkey on DVD or better yet wait for it hit the cheap theaters
| 
