Antibody (2002)

From my favorite movies..

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

I've seen this movie (in the German, lip-synchronized version) for the first time on the German Sci Fi Channel tonight, and my impression after seeing it was that the script for this movie must have probably fit on a napkin. As a German, I was doubly offended by this movie, because it unintentionally portrays a parallel world version of Germany in which human rights and freedom of press do not exist. Did they fear that droves of US-Americans would have wanted to emigrate to Germany, had they shown it like it really is? The "German" "police outfits" were simply green overalls with green baseball caps. The clichés (or fears) of uninformed US-Americans about Germans were largely satisfied (bold, mean, Nazi-like, etc.), everything a US tourist could fear that could happen to him/her (being arrested for no reason, having no right to call a lawyer, etc.). That the filmmakers did not even bother to get informed about Germany is speaking volumes about this movie.Other bad aspects about the movie are the boring visuals (even in the CG scenes), as if only a couple of blood cells would bumble along the blood vessels, and the thin storyline. Oftentimes CG scenes were cut between acting scenes that were entirely unrelated to each other (like, when they discover the sender device, no image of it is shown, instead some outside fighting scenes showing the vessel). The disarmament scene is only partially shown (when the CIA guy wants to remove the numbered pylons from the chip, only a second of it is shown, then the film jumps to the next scene), ruining even the final scenes.This movie certainly deserves a number of Golden Raspberries...

This was an interesting movie with a decent plot, but poorly made. The budget was obviously low and they spent most of it on the special effects and the ship that went inside the man. The effects were quite good, especially the white cells and the parasites in the blood.The first part of the film which sets the scenario was poorly written with corny dialog and bad acting. Seems like most of the actors were from the school of bad acting or the school of overacting. Robin Givens gave a good performance, and Lance Henriksen as Dr Gaynes was reasonable, but in the first part of the film his acting was not so good. The terrorists were badly played, as was the ANN reporter, who asked a German "you must have heard of us, we are the American News Network" -- unfortunately he had not, and nor has the audience of course. Those playing Germans were not believable, except maybe for the bald guy who worked in the lab as the one in charge.As for the science, it was lacking a bit. We can all say that shrinking people and machinery to microscopic size is not possible, but the science behind it should have been more believable in the film. For example, Dr Gaynes asks how small the ship was going to be shrunk too, but Dr Saverini was too vague in her answer. I expected an exact measurement in nanometers. Perhaps the makers did not know what a nanometer was? And it was totally unbelievable that a German terrorist (who actually turned out to be from South America) would state a distance as 50 miles. He would have said "80 kilometers". Only Americans and British people use miles.I also thought the romance between Richard Gaynes and Rachel was very contrived and not done well. The romance between the other 2 on the ship was quite good but it ended tragically, which made it a waste of time.Overall I think the makers had some good ideas but had no idea on how to make them work properly overall, and if there had been more backing financially and better acting and scriptwriting, it could have worked so much better. There was no build up of suspense at all in the first part, and no real emotion or reason to be interested in the characters until after Dr Gaynes went into the ship.Worst part of the film: near the start, when the villains are in the van and seen for the first time and they say something, that was done so badly I was starting to think the film was a comedy. Best part of the film: the attack of the white cells in t he blood.

Echoing the majority of comments here, this is a horrible ripoff of 'Fantastic Voyage'. With the exception of a few lines added for comic relief, the film as someone else suggested would be best used as fodder for a revived film-spoofing voice-over show. Robbin Givens and the newscaster looked a bit pleased to be seen in anything, but the rest of the cast seemed to be in pain (understandably). Heinricksen appears to have a hemorrhoid problem during his FBI review, or maybe he is just looking for the stage exit door to escape his agreement to do this film. It seems every opportunity was taken to waste chances to choose logical, practical, entertaining or otherwise valuable approaches to each scene. Some of the most ludicrous: seats with no harnesses, Star Wars fighting within the blood vessels, a terrorist who wakes up but does not even flinch during during several deep needles in the neck as he pretends to sleep, and the entire 'deactivation' of the detonator scene! Why did Zabka leave Mr. Miagi behind--we needed him to kick this one into the trash!

If you like "Worst of Hollywood" or "Mystery Science Theater 3000" you'll love the made-for-TV movie "Antibody" on the Sci-Fi channel. Essentially it's a remake of "The Fantastic Journey", but without Raquel Welch, no body-tight uniforms and without any originality or 60s appeal. It adds a new! twist! to the movie with some nutter that's set a nuclear device somewhere in Europe (who cares if only Europeans die, huh?), but that's really immaterial to the joy of watching early 60s Star Trek-style camera shakes, $150 sets, and *the* most wooden acting that would make 50s B-movie stars cringe. It's not that Robin Givens or Lance Henriksen are bad actors -- it's just proves that anyone given bad direction, bad sets, an awful rehashed plot (set cliches to "kill" !) and dialogue so corny that the sense of the actors suffering through this is palpable. IMDB users have *very* generously given the movie 3.8 our of 10. The only point to this movie that I can see is to make "Battlefield Earth" look like a good movie. And, just like that movie, this is a movie that is best enjoyed with a few friends, a few more beers, and a willingness to laugh *at* a movie rather than *with* it, and from that viewpoint it is worth every one of those hard-earned 3.8 stars.