A film that raises current issues, first touched upon in the novel about Frankenstein, but taking into account the scientific achievements and aspirations of the third millennium.
Genetics was a science that had great, almost fantastic hopes in the 1980s, but the pace of development slightly reduced the degree of interest in it in the following years. In addition to the fact that progressive genetic experiments are difficult to conduct without sufficient funding, sometimes moral aspects are at the forefront, and perhaps in no other area does this morality cause such fierce debate. These disputes are based on the plot of “Chimera” (the original name is “Splicing”).
Adrian Brody, Sarah Polly and especially Delphine Shaneak are the perfect choice for such a film. The actors look harmonious, the relationship of their characters is strained, and the gradual development of events holds intrigue.
A creature growing in front of geneticists is another example of a risky experiment. If Frankenstein’s monster is clearly a negative example of blind ambition, the Dren of Chimera is the result of more meaningful desires. Although this meaningfulness still did not provide all the options. At first, just lovely, and later beautiful Dren illustrates all the pros and cons of raising not only children, but also pets, and in general any living creature.
One can argue for a long time about how the belly differs from the inanimate, but at least one feature is not in doubt - will. This is a quality that artificial intelligence does not have, but every biological organism does. Both pleasant and unpleasant, both beautiful and repulsive. And since beauty is a very subjective concept, even those who were born in an artificial way are sometimes persecuted for various reasons: biological, medical, social, political and, of course, economic. These persecutions bring us and the characters of the film to questions about human cloning. Is it worth it to start, if even naturally born children sometimes become outcasts and even parents refuse them? If a person is born in a test tube, who is his legal guardian? This important issue is not solved now and is unlikely to be solved ever.
With Dren’s example, we see the consequences of such an imprudent step. She seems nice, but at the same time dangerous. The question of whether the creators of such a creature have the right to get rid of him causes such moral torment that it is perhaps pointless to reproach the characters of the film for illogical behavior. In their place, everyone would be confused. So, in order not to stagnate, just say that Dren is beautiful, the sexual scenes of the Chimera are literally fantastic, and in the finale there is even a convincing feminist message.
The obvious nitpicking of Chimera evokes other aspects. It's economic. The lives of scientists too often depend on funding, and funding tends to come from people who are as far from science as the Earth is from Sirius. When the chasm of misunderstanding between science and the thirst for profit rises to the surface, the unpleasant contradictions are sharpened to such an extent that the antisocial urges are very persistent. Chimera does not hesitate to show this very chasm, but the condemnation of money-hungry corporations in it is not felt strongly enough. For example, in the novel Jurassic Park, the condemnation is more explicit and convincing, while Chimera does not even hesitate to condemn anarchy, which certainly will not cause delight among adherents of such views. This is the main reason why I cannot give the Chimera the highest possible rating. Other reasons are less significant - an unreliablely strong embryo, a sad scene with a cat.
In fact, the problems of films like Chimera are the problems of our society, in which too often we have to put up with something against our will. As long as there are flaws in such a society, there will be criticism against it. Criticism offends those who want everyone to be humbled. That's the truth, that's life, and cinema is partly like that.
9 out of 10
P. S. Funny fact: the acronym NERD (the palindrome of which is the name Dren) means "boring", "nerd".
In the film, they worked well with nudity and erotic fantasies, there are episodes that can not only hold attention, but even stir up the bored viewer, but the human part of the horror sagged.
Alas, the closer to the finale, the more boring the humanism, and the monstrousness to which a hundred minutes of viewing has already become accustomed, loses its frightening properties. The drama of humanizing the man-made Mowgli never becomes a drama. Perhaps the filmmakers lacked a bit of skill.
Of course, the mannerisms of a hybrid of a person with something so-and-so hold attention during viewing. But you end up asking yourself a question. What was that?
Options: an artistic experiment, an attempt to find a commercial gold streak, a film exercise of aesthetic perverts.
What about the movie? A couple of scientists decided to break the taboo and make something out of genetic blanks. Chimera in a figurative sense is called wild ideas. And the resulting creature was too ugly to live among people openly, but too humanized. And?
And to dispose of the product of the experiment, scientists did not dare. Some of it resembles the projects of posthumanists, but only reminds.
It seems like a movie about science and seemingly eternal values.
The assessment of such a film, although it was praised at a specific festival, also seems to be good:
3 out of 10
The idea of the film about the creative impulses of scientists in the field of genetic engineering is very good and relevant, but not then - in 2009, and now - in 2019!
Do you know that many countries, in addition to the introduction of animal genes into plants, are engaged in surrogacy, and Ukraine is on the whole 3rd place in the “production” of new men from a test tube? So what are the problems of getting a cocktail of organisms into the egg??? And who knows, maybe military laboratories have been doing this for a long time? . .
Play actors, script, shooting – all appropriate and “plays” in favor of the plot. However, in 2009, some scenes of human contact with Chimera, which became the crown of the creation of two scientists - Elsa (Sarah Polly) and her husband Clive (Adrien Brody), looked generally perverse, and now, in 2019, 50 shades of gray, and the tricks of Hannibal Lecter look quite normal. So ...
The film leaves a strange, unknown aftertaste, a cocktail of mixed impressions and feelings that would be nice to deal with, because, as I think, the footage of this film awakens in us some dormant genes, deeply hidden sides of our essence, because man is a predator!
This film is not only a spectacle, but also a complex psychological portrait of the characters, which will be interesting to lovers of psychology: the dark past of psychopathic Elsa, the softness and sensuality of Clive, the development of the Chimera psyche (Dolphin Shaneak) as a representative of a not quite human race, which, however, passes through similar stages - infancy, childhood, adolescence, maturity - with their inherent changes in both the body and in the consciousness of the object. Philosophical questions were also not without: how animal-like can man be? how humane can the Chimera be? This is where real debate can take place!
The ending of the film, like some undisclosed storylines, is uniquely “sharpened” for the continuation, and it could be made very, very interesting, if not for the failure at the box office. Personally, though, I’d still like a sequel, because it could spark a new wave of interest in a film that wasn’t appreciated (in my opinion). This has been the case with movies and more than once.
The film is complex, ambiguous, and that is why I highly recommend it to watch, because this tape will not leave you indifferent, especially if there is someone to discuss it with!!
9 out of 10
The story begins quite simply. A couple of scientists decide on an experiment, during which they create a “being”. This “something” is not clear what it looks like, but it grows quite quickly. Realizing the fact of growth, scientists decide to hide the creature. Don't let others find him. Why did scientists think it was a “fairy tale”? In fact, it was a nightmare.
Dolphin Shaneak. The only one in the film who played 100%. Chimera in her performance turned out terrible, terrible. And yet the creature suffered, felt and just wanted to live. Like Frankenstein in the Van Helsing movie. However, despite the fact that scientists wanted to educate Chimera, she was and remained a monster. Sooner or later, all monsters begin to destroy everything around them.
As for the other actors. If Sarah Polly (Elsa) played the role less normally, then Adrian Brody (Clive) hardly remembered (except for one scene with a chimera, which was very shocking). You could see that wasn't his role. All the other characters are secondary characters who did not contribute much to the development of the film.
The music was not memorable (and the music is half the movie after all). And the only thing that saved the movie (again, Chimera) was its ending. It was frank and unexpected. Unfortunately, it is not possible to say that the film was justified and that it will be revised. At the same time, it should be noted that the creation itself turned out as planned - terrible, terrible and vulnerable. So it's worth a look. First of all, to see what is the monster of the Chimera.
7 out of 10
The authors should choose a different slogan: "We are responsible for those who created." The idea of the film is not new: people imagine themselves equal to God/evolution and, having created something new, acquire a lot of problems for this, and at the same time for themselves. A kind of Frankenstein and his creation in the scenery of the 21st century, a variation on the fashionable theme of genetic experiments.
The film is labeled as "horror," but I only found two things terrible here: the presentation scene (suddenness, shock, panic, R rating - all right) and the moral character of the creators. And if Clive is still shown simply as a weak, soft and uncharacteristic person, then Elsa is despotic, cocky and guided only by her egoism and natural instincts. She is a geneticist, absolutely not thinking about the consequences of her actions and experiments: to succeed (a successful experiment, a grant, a “child”) at any cost is the only goal that worries her.
It seems to me that this film is one of those when the sympathies of the audience are more on the side of the monster (by the way, very fascinating and beautiful for most of the film). And for some reason it seems to me that the filmmakers themselves understood this, but it is too late. Therefore, we tried to turn the ending of a fairly smooth film into the most brutal thrash worthy of the declared rating. As if in one last attempt to convince the viewer, "Look, there it is, the beast!" You see how horrible and cruel he is!
No, I can't see. I see a creature that does everything to save itself. He's doing the right thing. No one cares about him except Drain.
5 out of 10
+ 5 - for the chimera and for Adrian Brody.
5 - for the unoriginality of the idea and its disclosure, the moral character of the shown geneticists and sudden, unnecessary and inexplicable common sense sex.
Accepted ambiguously sci-fi "Chimera" Vincenzo Natalie refers to the exciting question of creating a form of life that has a completely different kind of alien, in which recognizable features of other animals, including humans. The very basis, adopted by the Canadian, grew from "Frankenstein", "Fly" Cronenberg, "Alien" Ridley Scott and "Minorities". And as in these horrors, the main culprit of the celebration is the monster.
That is, the monster Dren (Delphine Shaneak) plays his best game. And oddly enough, you even feel sympathy for him, in his behavior there are all the characteristic signs of growing up a young person. Before us, a living creature, going through the stages of development in a few days, bio-engineers Clive (Adrian Brody, the same man from the Hollywood action movie Sarika) and Elsa (Sarah Polly), act as the parents of our beauty, which also manifests the complex of electra. Elsa, like all mothers who wish good to her daughter, tries to reduce the whims of a teenager who develops sexual hunger. All of this will lead us as a result, to the strangest scene of modern biotech fiction.
A little sad, Natalie doesn’t know how to deal with emotions, he’s still an artisan, and his only trump card is the ability to present an old idea in an original way (sounds strange, I know). Just a look from a different angle, there is no primitive sniffing, history will not snitch with you, what else can I say if the scientists themselves are shown as madmen who have fallen ill with scientific excitement, not even understanding - "curiosity is a deadly thing." And many viewers were shocked, either intuitively examining the graceful monster, saw something unpleasant in it, or dreary in the film itself?
This proof is evidenced by the reaction of the audience, the fact is that perception. From the minute so fourth, it becomes a little on its own, there is a feeling of disgust from the sight of creatures crawling on the surface of the glass, in order to hug their limbs. This is a serious movie not for everyone, but after which, I give a finger to cut off, a number of scenes will be cut into memory for a long time. Therefore, to watch necessarily, I am sure, will be a little nasty, uncomfortable, but also childishly interesting.
Only, it is a real art, obliged to wrest the layman out of his comfort zone, leaving the thought of genetic engineering and the dangers of changing the DNA structure, although in fact cinema is more subtle and even reflects on education - and it does! The author does not want to throw science into the Stone Age, the author only gave a realistic version of what if this has already happened. Who knows what's going on in secret labs overseas, or here we are. Maybe it has already happened.
In any case, Chimera is a great example of science fiction, necessary for my perverse taste. Thank you for your attention, all the best.
Take care of yourself so as not to fall when walking.
I chose the title of the review not by chance because this film is about how hard it is to be a parent, and especially if your child is not like everyone else, and he is a hybrid of man and animal. There is no such thing as a book, and the advice of the elders will not help you. And this is exactly the situation our heroes are in, who decided to first check they will be able to raise their child, and their toy was exactly "Chimera".
This film is another spit in the face of all those who adhere, we all understand what the theory of human origin. But thank God we live in a time where you can write, shoot anything and you will not get anything for it, of course it is only on paper. So to the film itself, because two scientists have created a new organism, many make a parallel with “Frankenstein” because the essence is the same and it is the struggle of a great mind, which is an atheist with God. A child or an animal became problematic, but the heroes tried to deal with them like a human child, thought that he would, passes the same stages of development, but there is no animal gene, turned out to be stronger than a human and instead of plush toys and colorings, she needs blood, meat and sex.
This picture caused more negative emotions than positive ones. The film touches on serious themes, but as they are revealed, as shown, there is only one word in the language: immorality.
The masterpiece of the first half of the fantastic drama Vincenzo Natalie looks so fascinating that the recent, similar cross-breeding of genomes in the Jurassic World , does not even compare with the bewitching frivolity that occurred after the creation of biochemists, that strange anthropomorphic embryo in which, in addition to the presence of DNA of animals and birds, was magically mixed with human DNA. The huge interest in the development of the plot, which consisted in the rapid progress of the growth of the conditional "chimera" (although instead of the mythological head and neck of the lion, an absolutely attractive, female face with a small scar from the back of the head to the forehead was formed), not by days, but by hours, very quickly began to fade, after rare sex between a person and his experiment.
To his climax, Vincenzo approached apparently superficially, turning such an elegantly cassy plot into such a banal “rubile”, thereby spoiling the entire initially logically harmonious, albeit sci-fi, plot, bringing it to the absurdity of some “Other World” or “Van Helsing”. Cinema also entertains and impresses, not only with good graphics, but also with the successful building of relations between Dren (Shaneak) with Clive (Browdy) and Elza (Polly) - conditional Typhon and Echidna. The development of the plot is structured in such a way that the attitude of two scientists in love changes dramatically to their offspring, as well as the offspring itself, leveling their attractiveness because of this. The cast, however, looked quite convincing, and implantably stood in those images, which played: stylish Adrian Brody, not particularly attractive, but no less bright Sarah Polly and of course Delphine Shaneak, in the role of the same tail and sting, which organically suited its unusual appearance.
Veriding the film "Splice", first of all, I want to note the exotic director of the picture, who is able to choose original themes for his films and competently present them, which showed both "Cube" and "Limb". But alas, this masterpiece of genetic engineering spoiled a too gaggy ending, although it left room for continuation.
The first time I came across an advertisement for this film on TV (and I rarely turn it on), I immediately set out to buy tickets to the movies. Alas, for some reason in the cinemas of my city, this film was not broadcast, and I had to wait a while to watch it later on the Internet.
How I wanted to see it - I was very intrigued by the monster girl, I was wondering, I was wondering what this horror film could bring me. And he presented ... one disappointment and, as it is called, "facepalm."
No, at first I liked everything, quite normal, even I would say nice - when there was a small incomprehensible creature that grew and gradually became like a man ... No, I even turned a blind eye to unnecessary intimate scenes of the main characters, which caused me a slightly gag reflex, because I hate it when such scenes are completely out of place in films - I wanted to look at something else, and not at these human copulations. As it turned out, it was worse. Combination with this chimera... Oh, my God. Oh, the devil. What? Why? Why? I could accept it if its creator wasn’t already with the girl, if he wasn’t the “father” of this human-like creature, if it was just presented in a normal and beautiful way, and not so disgusting way! Moreover, when I did decide to watch the remaining 20 minutes of the film, this creature died and then resurrected, but transformed into a male gender. This led to another disgusting scene – the chimera man raped, it turns out, his “mother”, because he still carried her human genes. It’s terrible, but not the one I’d like to see.
How many of my favorite monsters, aliens and mutants can I show off as such freaks? In addition, here people are shown as freaks, ready to spend the night with any moving object or creature. I just can't say otherwise, sorry.
This film defiled my feelings, but
3 out of 10
Just because I liked the beginning and sometimes the chimera girl herself.
In this fantastic story, we see how a pair of scientists engaged in research and experiments on protein synthesis secretly create a hybrid of humans and animals. They hide this creature from everyone, and it soon grows. Scientists gave him life, but they could not answer for the consequences, so everything got out of control.
The topic of creating hybrids or clones will always be relevant. Does a person have the right to do that? Does he have that power? The heroes of this story gave new life, but could not find a place in the world of this creature. Watching this movie, I tried to feel it and appreciate it, but I didn’t like the movie.
There are a lot of special effects in this fantastic film, and the Chimera itself was original and unlike anything, but I will say no to this film anyway. I'll try to explain. The plot of the picture is fast, and in places everything looked somehow implausible. In such an expensive, secret laboratory, young scientists managed to hide such a high-profile experiment. This movie had an idea, but the way it was shown didn’t impress me.
The main roles were played by Andrew Brody and Sarah Polly. As for Andyan Brody, I respect and appreciate this actor. He plays without falsehood, and this role of a scientist approached. In my opinion, the female role should have been given to another actress. Sarah Polly is an ordinary, unremarkable actress. She was a bit out of the movie and some of the scenes were fake. I want to emphasize once again that the special effects of the film were good, but the movie as a whole turned out to be a failure and empty. It's in dire need of refinement. I would never watch this movie again.
Chimera is a fantastic horror film of 2009 by the famous director of horror films and horror films Vincenzo Natalie. This picture is not impressive, moreover, it seems unpleasant.
The film was frankly disappointing. I noticed it when I was just getting acquainted with the genre of fantastic horror, but my hands reached only now. I doubt I would have been thrilled with this movie even when I didn’t know which movie was cheap and which was good. From this genre, I wanted interesting plots and cleverly drawn images that can scare. Chimera showed neither one nor the other. Now that I know about special effects, I can say that they are not in this movie either. And to show a movie in theaters that pulls to the level of television is just a crime. The expression “impression as in the movies” is clearly not about this film. No beautiful views, expensive graphics and extreme scenes You will not see here. Here I will cite as an example a phrase said by one commentator about the television horror movie “Shark Man”: “another left-wing film about how someone created some kind of rosary and everyone knows everything further.” This film has not gone far from that cheap.
I don’t understand anyone who admires this movie. There are some really worthwhile films about genetic engineering, which showed both the plots are much more intricate, and the graphics at the level. What's good about Chimera? With your primitive idea of creating a human-animal hybrid? Cheap scenery Laboratory and country house? The same low-cost murder scenes that were few and unimpressive? And if this is a theatrical film, then where are the extreme scenes involving a mutant against the backdrop of a metropolis or picturesque views? The film is so bad and primitive that I hardly remember it. If it was really worthwhile and exciting, at least the ending would be remembered. But I even forgot it, like junk. Because the movie can be called that word. It is worth watching only those who are beginning to get acquainted with the horror genre. Such horrors that are unable to scare, but serve only to warm up before real-life movies.
5 out of 10
When I found out about this film, I was intrigued, they say, something new in the genre of science fiction. And to be honest, the first half of the movie was quite interesting to watch. By the end of the film, I started to have vomit. This is not about the plot and not so much about the bad performance of the actors (although it is not the actors themselves who are to blame, but a poorly written script), but about disgusting episodes. I don’t know why we were shown the scenes of coitus between man and chimera, it was as vile as watching a pornographic film involving a man and a dog. And in general, it seems that the film is biased towards sexual themes. Perhaps someone will say that this is ' a work ' an example of elite culture, but it is difficult to agree with this. It's just an immoral picture. . .
You can talk for a long time about all the abominations of the film, but I do not see the point. ' Green Elephant' against its background it may seem ' a masterpiece' (although it is strongly said).
In conclusion, I can only say that this is the worst movie I have ever seen. I do not advise anyone, just waste your time and nerves.
3 out of 10
Man by nature has a sense of pride and vanity, which in some people is enough, and in others - extremely much and it is this that pushes them to make certain discoveries. As well as curiosity, which has never brought humanity to anything good. In total, many people are trying to surpass themselves and go beyond what they put.
Behind a rather provocative topic and no less shocking visual series, the scandalous director Vincenzo Natalie raises a rather deep and ambiguous meaning from the point of view of perception. The sense that very often a person tries to assume the role of God, but does not realize the terrible consequences of his actions and desire to become more than he is. Moreover, it is with good intentions that the most terrible things are done.
The film is based on how two brilliant scientists try to create life and simply do not realize behind their ambitions and vanity what Pandora’s box they open and what can escape from it. The film subtly emphasizes the no less subtle line between morality, ethics and science, the extent to which the main characters are clearly not aware and in fact this is what results in all further manifestations of disgusting events on the screen. Whether it is the first scene of sex, or the final scene, which equally strongly cause disgust and at the same time contempt for the main characters. Since sometimes we ourselves are guilty of what we bring upon ourselves, and if a person in addition is a fool, then this is what he really needs.
Vincenzo Natalie in his usual role reflects on the screen no disgusting details of the scenes of violence, how much the film keeps in an atmosphere of real paranoia, madness and disgust, which creates the impression of how disgusting everything that happens on the screen and thereby further increases the impression of what is happening on the screen, but at the same time, depriving the viewer of such a sense of comfort that would allow you to simply watch what is happening on the screen, and not experience all this hardness on yourself morally.
Adrian Brody played extremely convincing. Sarah Poly played even better, and together both actors created truly convincing images of mad scientists who should have been killed at the very beginning of the film. Well, most impressive of all is Dolphin Shanaek, who perfectly got used to the image of the creature Dren created by these scientists. What clearly contributed to the peculiar and clearly extraterrestrial appearance of the actress.
4 out of 10
Chimera is another appeal to the fact that a person should not play God, imagine himself by him and try to do what he is not supposed to do in essence. The film is very atmospheric and disgusting at the same time. In fact, like all the impression of watching the tape strangely balances between disgust and sympathy for the creation of Natalie.
Nature allows us to touch beauty, but intrusion into its order has consequences. Here we see how the desire of scientists to create something new leads to a logical result. Proof that you can't jump above your head. The hero of Adrian Brody is not memorable, poorly worked out. Sarah Polly was more persuasive and stronger, and sometimes her character expressed crazy ideas. Yes, she defends her ambitious plans, on the one hand frightening and creepy, but on the other hand, what kind of a scientist who is afraid to go beyond the limits, to go further. A medal has two sides. Her desire to leave Dran is an unrealized desire to have a child, but it is easier for her to raise a monster. For me, this is primarily a drama – a story about a woman who was afraid of motherhood and this experiment became a kind of rehearsal for her. A chance to know what kind of mother she will be. It's a pretty weird way. The impression of the film is dark and sad.
For a long time I thought about whether to make a positive review or negative. I pay tribute to the inconsistency of the idea, good shooting and special effects. It was interesting to see what to think about, and more. Thank you for that.
And now about why, after all, "no." In one sentence, the essence of the film is that two seemingly intelligent adults, driven by curiosity, create something, completely selfishly condemning it to suffering, and ultimately themselves. Soft Clive, who can't stand his own, morally mad Elsa... The naivety of both is overwhelming, sometimes stupid. Knowing that their creation is unpredictable, they somehow do not bother to properly protect it, and then sincerely surprised by the consequences.
In my opinion, the most logical character in this story is Chimera herself. She is a victim, fighting a wild predator and a loving creature. It is understandable and understandable, unlike the grief-experimenters.
Originally, it was a horror movie, and it was presented to me that way. But the horrors appear only at the end, and then not hyper-terrible.
The finale evoked mixed feelings. I am afraid to imagine what she (Else) is like and what she has yet to go through in such and such a situation.
The moral of this fable is this: Do not go where you should not go. But if you do, have a conscience – have responsibility.
So, if you are not a pedant and a critic, the film as a whole is not bad, not boring, it deserves a single viewing.
Once in the article “In the claws of a fairy tale” Dmitry Bykov as if prophesied this movie, jokingly coming up with a plot for the “main world bestseller” – “the story of the Ryaba chicken with three sequels – about a silver, bronze and simple egg, from which, for the sake of the fifth series, a new chicken will hatch.”
Well, for me, Chimera is a fairy tale. About the wonders of genetic engineering and the magic of biochemists - the main carriers (or magi) of the new science. After all, in this film, right before our eyes (personally I had them wider than a saucer), everything will hatch: simple, and gold, and with legs and without, and with wings, and with gills, and with tail, and with chest, and with eyes of the navi, and masculine, and female, and even mixed, and herbivorous, and carnivorous, and beautiful, and terrible, and good and evil ... In short, childish and non-childish surprises in the film can not be counted. Here science is in isolation and in adaptation for the mass viewer, and the discoveries resemble either a dispute on the weak and fun of bored scientists, or a fabulous potion (create your dragon, aha).
The genre of the film, like the plot, is based on a cross. And a family drama about alienation, and a horror movie, and a production novel, and a Gothic love story (with wings, oh!). And, of course, a fairy tale. Scientific, therefore mega-modern.
Remember, the political storyteller Shchedrin liked to revive animals? And they talk to him, and think, and spoil, drown in evil, in general, behave like people. Aesop’s language in its pure form is not immediately in the forehead, not alphabetically, usefully and besides does not distract from reality (like an ordinary fairy tale), but calls to fight it in the name of something there.
Natalie is also not averse to poetry and struggle. And he also has a hell of a bunch of animals, it seems, all the non-predatory fauna in the collection. And they are needed, as it turns out somewhere in the second half of the film, then why Shchedrin: to bring his own portrait to the face of humanity, only not caricatured and parody, but fantasy, from dreams, from the series “fear dreams, because they come true.”
Do we, enchanted by the Avatar and carried away by some Hulk, want to be human at all? If “yes, we really want to”, then why would science (which, like politics, is always in the thick of life and social through) dream of creating a non-human, not a creature of God and deduce some of our alternative, or continuation, or substitute, or clone, or “something”?
I once met a young man on a movie site. He dreamed of a tail! Well, dreamed and dreamed, everyone has their own quirks and virtues. However, he put this dream on a serious scientific basis. I was fascinated with ethology like a mother. Scientifically and many pages — with examples, quotes, evidence — explained that animals are better than people and everyone, everyone, everyone. More moral, anyway. Yeah.
Therefore, he did not want to be a man too much, went into the game with his head, tried on the images of various animals (foxes, panthers, cats). Romantic. Besides, this escape from reality is not the most senseless and weak. And our reality probably deserves it. Everyone has the right to their own picture of the world. But still... Is that what this painting is all about?
Dina Khapaeva in the monograph “Gothic society”. The Morphology of the Nightmare brings out the following social symptoms (sorry for the free retelling): we live in the “age of chimeras”, in an aesthetic universe where a person identifies himself not with a person, but with inhumans. Hence life in imaginary worlds, immersion in the game, passion for fantasy, the desire to plunge into a nightmare. The “dimension of the nightmare” is central to the Gothic, from the point of view of Khapayeva, inhumane, dehumanized aesthetic.
Oscar Wilde wrote a story about Dorian Gray. Dorian's got two in her. A man will be wiped out, and the true Dorian on canvas. Chimera is (like the brainchild of Frankenstein, about whom I recently wrote) also a portrait / double of a person, or rather - his inflated ambitions, unlimited claims to perfection, omnipotence, power, etc. plus his inability to live, be happy, be responsible for his actions and for others, etc. It's like Wilde's: Dran (in the creators' dreams she's also the ideal - the perfect cocktail of genes) grows and becomes more and more like a papomama. And the more certain it resembles, the more terrible, evil, uncontrollable it looks (and its predation is from a person). This is no longer a fairy tale, but a dream come true, leading yourself to know where with all good intentions.
Speaking of intentions. What drives the new Mulder and Scully? (The similarity of the characters with this paranormal couple will not be noticed only by the blind.) To make a major breakthrough in bioengineering, the biggest, that is, ambition? Good for humanity, salvation from incurable diseases? Eugenics? The cult of evolution? The desire to taste the forbidden fruit (now from the Tree of Life)? Did Adam and Eve create man without Him and even without each other? What do they want?!
Maybe they just can't stop. Because sometimes gift turns into mania. And it is a crime against society and morality - revolution, war, sect, murderous discovery, etc.
All of these issues have already been raised in art. In the same "Heart of a Dog" not only Sharikov, but Preobrazhensky is an antihero, a caricature of all who imagine themselves capable of making a new model (an improved product) of man, biological, political, ethical.
What did this movie say? And not my intellect, my brain, libido, curiosity, but my soul? .
I looked and as if testing my humanity for strength. Its criteria and boundaries, capabilities and depth. Yeah. Natalie’s cinema, with all its recklessness and evocability, entertainment and outrageousness, is a test of humanism.
Who or what is this “final product” of scientists? Number (H-50) or person (Dran)? A puzzle of unique gene combinations or an offended, loving, living whole? A nightmare of an experimenter, a new kind of life, a pet in an enclosure or... Looking at the miracle-Judo-man, you can also test yourself for xenophobia (this test, however, was much more convincing in “District N9” conducted), Oedipus complex and sense of humor. By the way, the last one didn't work for me. Not once.
I was their toy and their god, and even better, their child.
I watched the movie “Chimera” by Vincenzo Natalie. This time I am not going to scold the translation of the title, this is probably the best possible option, but I still note that the original film is called “Splice”, because, in my opinion, both meanings are important for it – and “connection, splicing” and “marriage”.
Elsa and Clive, a pair of talented biochemists and cheerful young people, look completely positive characters, and corporate workers, forbidding them to conduct experiments with human DNA and generally inhibit experiments, make an unpleasant impression. Elsa and Clive have created viable organisms that are a genetic cross between many animals and synthesize proteins that can form the basis for many vaccines and the like. Biochemists want to continue experiments and use human genes to solve the problem of hereditary diseases (and, of course, out of scientific curiosity), but management does not want to waste time on expensive, and ethically dubious experiments, and requires instead to focus on the applied synthesis of the newly obtained protein. Elsa decides to conduct the experiment in secret (just to make sure that it is possible) and encourages Clive to do so; the secret combination of genes grows into secret fertilization with this egg material - just to see how the fetus will develop, whether it will be viable. And then, because scientists have not been able to predict all the details of development, “births” occur before they destroy the fetus (unless Elsa intended to). And again, the girl stops Clive, who was going to kill the creature - this is also a unique opportunity to observe a new species, in addition, the creature quickly develops and ages, so that its life cycle will be short. The individual (who soon received the name Dren from Elsa) is really growing very quickly, and more and more like a person. And if the upper limbs do not appear immediately, then the relationship between Dren and biochemists looks exactly like the relationship of parents and children from the first minute. Dren is spoon-fed (and she spits “dad”), she is sick, learns to read, she is given the first doll, she finds adults for “this”, goes through a teenage rebellion, learns to makeup... And Elsa behaves almost immediately like a mother - it's not so much about her role as it is about emotional reactions. It’s amazing how Clive doesn’t notice this for a long time, and Elsa herself for even longer, denying her own feelings and continuing to claim that it’s still an experiment. However, this is understandable - with motherhood she has complex associations (about the details of which the viewer can only guess, and this gives results).
The film is shot amazingly, as it happens almost exclusively with films based on the director’s own script. There is nothing in Chimera, nothing accidental at all, the plot is built magnificently. From the careless joy of young scientists moving humanity forward, reminiscent of almost “Monday begins on Saturday”, the film moves to a family melodrama (extra joints and a child’s tail do not change anything), and this is periodically interrupted by completely thriller scenes, recognizable to everyone who watched “Alien” – until the thriller becomes the leading genre, only not the one that could be expected from a film about genetic engineering. And then everything that was expected in a film about genetic engineering happens.
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to talk about the essence of the film without spoilers, so I apologize if the following sounds indistinct.
In the first part of the film, I was most sorry for Clive – he loves his girlfriend, and is too weak to resist her, and here he is both a scientist conducting illegal experiments and a young father involuntarily. Elsa almost immediately caused a strong rejection. She is the full embodiment of negative stereotypes about typical-female: at the same time assertive, stupid, hysterical, sluts with Dren, but increasingly falls into violent irritation ... As a victim of a very bad and cruel mother, Elsa, on the one hand, exudes exaggerated tenderness, and on the other - can not fully cope with this maternal role model, and a reverent attitude towards the "daughter" keeps all negative emotions to the boiling point when they become really dangerous. Then the dynamics of the relationship of this specific family becomes more and more Freudian: the growing “daughter” causes more and more tenderness of the “father” and more irritation of the “mother”, and both pay the same. Initially, the unhealthy “family” develops along a tangled spiral of anger, indifference, attraction and care, which always easily spawn each other until Dren really becomes a monster – but hardly because of their unique genes.
Chimera is the most convincing work I know of that proves that one cannot play God. This is not a story about cloning. This is a story about the relationship between parents and children.
Adrian Brody and Sarah Polly both play amazingly, because they actually hold the whole movie, essentially chamber. They have very complex roles, ambiguous, with confusing motivation, and only a truly sincere game allows the viewer to never doubt what is happening. Dolphine Shaneak's play is difficult for me to appreciate - she has a special role, and she is created together by an actress, makeup and computer special effects. I’ll just say that Dren looks like both a child and an unknown, strange creature, and it turns out to be frighteningly realistic.
Critics seem to think Chimera is just a good movie. Now, they're wrong, and I'm right: he's amazing. I highly recommend everyone to watch it, and I rarely give categorical recommendations. But it’s also a heavy movie, sometimes creepy — I say this so you don’t blame me for your nightmares. But I repeat it all the same - you should definitely look.
8 out of 10
What I called the review was the thoughts I had throughout the film. The trailer for Chimera is impressive, but the movie itself clearly failed. The point is this.
Realism.
There is no realism in the film. It's not even a matter of crossing human and animal DNA. I'm not a biologist, so I can't say why that's impossible. It is clear that “Chimera” is science fiction, but to get a quality film of this genre, no question about what is happening to the average viewer should not arise. You don’t have to be a microbiologist or a genetic engineer to make movies like this—you just have to play around and explain the scientific details, preferably in a way that looks more or less realistic. And that's the big problem.
The first thing that catches the eye are scientists (Adrian Brody and Sarah Polly). They don’t look like scientists at all. To begin with, they behave unprofessionally, to put it mildly: they joke and laugh while conducting experiments as if it were a chemistry class, not an institute of biological research.
First, they start an experience they were not allowed to do. Then Elsa runs from Clive to the lab where the fucking gene experiments are done. When Chimera is already running, Clive's brother opens the door so easily, as if it were a walkway, not a scientific laboratory, complementing the whole affair. It gets worse. The heroes of the film continue what they started. Well, what the hell are they doing? Clive and Elsa had to do the right thing in a series of stupid acts to avoid disaster: finish the experiment, but no. Every time they do something, they regret it. Who, if not scientists, should use reason to make decisions? Well, the ending just killed me. I wanted to ask the heroine: “Are you not enough?”
What's even weirder is how the characters behave with Dren. In short, she is treated like a human being: dressed, raised, Clive dances with her, and not only dances. This scene knocked me out of the saddle, so to speak. Okay, you're good with the creature, even though it's tried to kill you a couple of times. But to have sex with an extremely dangerous creature, about which you really do not know anything, besides studying it, only a crazy pervert can.
The next disadvantage is two vile pieces of meat (in other words and not to name), from which it was necessary to withdraw the medicine. For starters, they look really ugly. It was strange to see the admiration of scientists for these creatures.
The essence of my claim is that everything that happens to them is illogical. How did both creatures become the same sex? Shouldn't they have changed it at the same time? And even if they do it after a while, then what is the biological meaning of this: why not yet have offspring, change the sex and kill their own kind? A lot of questions - answers zero.
Surrounding.
What kind of laboratory is this? It's really more like a classroom, but it's not like a science center where genetic experiments are conducted. Can a film with a budget of $30 million not afford to create a normal entourage, to dress scientists to become — in general, to take care of the external realism? A lot of small things like this make it look like a very cheap, low-quality movie. I do not believe that all the money was spent on the creation of the Chimera itself: there were very few computer effects there.
And yet, where are the security cameras that allow you to monitor their employees, the course of experiments, and the safety of the object as a whole. How is the boss (Joan Short) going to make a profit from her experiments, the progress of which is not even monitored? Yeah, with that level of security, I wouldn't be surprised if I were her.
What an acting game.
Another significant disadvantage is the way the actors who performed their roles: it looks like it is not a multi-million dollar blockbuster, but some kind of passing thrash. Okay, Sarah Polly — it’s the first time I see her on the screen, so I don’t perceive her as a serious actress, but Adrian Brody, who played in such great films as The Pianist and The Jacket, is clearly a hack.
But still, I will be objective and highlight the pluses of the picture. There are few of them, but they are still there.
Despite the stupidity, Chimera can be given a ball for special effects. They are here, but not as much as we would like.
Also worth noting is the makeup of Delphine Shaneak. What is really well implemented is the face and facial expressions of the Chimera.
And finally, I would like to say that the idea for a fantastic film is very good. Yes, the implementation is clearly lame, but the idea itself is worthy of mention.
Based on all the pros and cons listed by me, I put “Chimera”
Unusual movie. Remembered and after viewing scrolls in the head on the second circle. Human characters are poorly drawn (the main roles are obvious miscasting), realism is limp on both legs, but the Being turned out to be famous.
The expression of the eyes, movements, facial expressions, sounds – everything is so different that sometimes it shakes. And at the same time - rare glimpses of humanity, which, alas, quickly fade as the puberty of the monster.
And it is impossible not to note the psychological component, which many find superficial, forgetting that in most films of this genre it is absent or even more primitive. The test-tube Frankenstein is just a reflection of the main character's own problems. From a cute smart animal that causes tenderness, a monster grows. Only incorrigible optimists (which, it turns out, include geneticists with a worldwide reputation) could count on a different result.
It’s hard to tell if you liked it more or didn’t like it. The cinema is very uneven. The pace of events is slow, and suddenly, in the last five or seven minutes, a very unfortunate ending is crammed in. This is usually the case in soap operas - no action for 1,000 episodes, and then a hail of bush pianos in the final series.
On the pluses of the film - to say that it is filled with stamps impossible. References to Frankenstein in themselves do not mean that the script is not independent. On the contrary, it is very interesting to observe the growing up of the “child” and the changing attitude of the “parents” towards him. If you perceive the relationship of the trio as the main line of the film, then you still want to watch the end.
Another plus is a stunning visual impression of Dren (Nerd on the contrary, the inscription on the jersey “mother”, in Russian it is “nerd”, “egghead”). Express all emotions without a single word heroine managed to five plus. I would not say that the erotic scene with her is disgusting.
And here the minuses begin - against the background of Dren, the "parents" look extremely faint and unconvincing. Watching their “emotions” is frankly boring. The actors read a very good script text without much enthusiasm.
The main drawback is a completely failed ending. Competent scientists behave like hysterical teenagers, the storyline irreparably clumps, lubricating all previous impressions. The final scenes could be made much more logical and concise, the brought "treasure" did not carry any special meaning.
The conclusion is a visually and psychologically interesting story about the tragically developed relationship between the adoptive and his guardians, spoiled by the uneven rhythm of the narrative and the stupid, obviously hastily made finale. It is worth a look, but the feeling of incompleteness of the film is unlikely to force you to review it again.
It seems to me that Adrian Brody is pathologically incapable of acting in bad films. A top-class actor is not designed for thrashing, so Chimera is originally a big movie. This is a high-quality sci-fi thriller, albeit made for the masses, but not pretending to be a masterpiece. We are given a purely interesting, exciting story, so why should we be outraged that something in it is shown as perversion? Perversion is a bunch of other films, the titles of which he does not intend to disclose. And this mix of psychology, fear and desire is very decent: just don’t show it to children, that’s all.
The glorious script has revived into a picture that is exhilarating, exciting, allowing itself to go beyond the far-fetched limits of censorship. From the first minutes it is clear that it is easier to chew stones. And so, until the last minute, the feeling of serious interest (a typical sign called “what’s next?”) does not even think to pass. Chimera grows, develops, becomes like a person, disappoints, frightens, finally makes you doubt your “softness and fluffiness”. The last twenty minutes of the session is a real serious action from the category of mysticism and maniacism. The finale, like the whole film, is incomparable.
So I advise you not to listen to the bad guys. If you do not beat into the blood for the promotion of conservative views, and are ready just to enjoy a mind-blowing plot - please. Suspense - will be, surprise - surely! Personally, it occurred to me subconsciously that viewing the Chimera, indirect participation in all the events shown, is an immersion in an undesirable environment that you do not want to change to cozy interiors. Simply put, “I’m afraid, I’m going inside, I want more.”
And the fact that there are some scientific problems pointing to blatant blunders in the proposed history - God, aren't you tired of reinventing the wheel? Just follow the lead of that little unknown devil who is always happy to show where crayfish and other unknown animals winter. You will love to overcome this horror. To some extent, watching such unpleasant films, spiritually we become stronger.
Learn to kill your fears.
Canadian director and screenwriter Vincenzo Natalie became widely known after the release of the fantastic film "Cube" on the big screens and consolidated his success with the spy thriller "Coder". "Chimera" - another work of Vincenzo, in which he again resorts to topics that make the viewer think. This time we are talking about genetic experiments, their admissibility from the point of view of morality.
In the prologue of the tape, the viewer meets Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polly) - a young married couple. Both are biochemists and work in the same laboratory. The main task of Clive and Elsa is to synthesize new organisms to make protein from them. One day, the company’s management tells scientists that they are going to stop experiments and want to move to the “second stage” – industrial production of protein. Clive and Elsa are perplexed as they stand on the verge of a revolutionary discovery in genetics. If you open the door and walk in, you get a cure for many genetic diseases. The board of directors insists on its own, and young scientists go underground, deciding to carry out their daring and exciting project alone - to synthesize human and animal DNA to produce a genetic hybrid.
In general, Vincenzo Natalie shot a good sci-fi thriller, but, unlike “Osobies”, – not without philosophical background. The director competently demonstrated the result of a bold genetic experience that goes against the laws of Nature. At the same time, the denouement of the picture leaves the viewer the opportunity to make his emotional choice: to sympathize with or condemn the main characters.
By the way, the images of the main characters are very characteristic and thought out very well. So, Elsa is obsessed with her scientific idea. Elsa has not the best memories of childhood “thanks” to her mother (this storyline should be enriched with details). Therefore, Elsa is now not very eager to have children, but not averse to “get” a half-human half-chicken, that is, a chimera. Elsa's husband, Clive, is very wary of his wife's idea and does not want to cross the ethical barrier, but still succumbs to the persuasion of his girlfriend. If Elsa looks a little reckless at the beginning of the film, then Clive is very prudent. However, as Dren grows up (that’s how the “parents” decided to call “daughter”), the spouses actually change their characters. It is necessary to admit that the actions, gestures and facial expressions of the main characters perfectly express their mental state and attitude to a particular episode.
Separate praise should be awarded to the performer of the role of Dren - Dolphin Shaneak. Her acting is so inspired that the actress evokes strong sympathy for her heroine - consider a teenage girl with an incredible past, a cheerless present and a vague future. The very fact of "birth" Each viewer is free to treat Dren in his own way, but hardly anyone can refrain from sympathetic thoughts on her address. Naturally, excellent work was done by computer graphics specialists. Dran on the screen looks incredibly naturalistic and can give a hundred points of head start to the same Frankenstein monster.
And yet the film “Chimer” lacks dramatic and scripted diversity. Although the film mostly looks in one breath, but somehow it gives off predictability. Nothing special, there is no new in it and hardly thought about it. However, the idea of the writers is new and modern, even relevant for the era of active introduction of biotechnology and the latest achievements of genetic engineering, in the era of cloning (so far, animals).
Chimera lacks completeness in any particular genre. There is little action in the picture (the final scene); Dren herself is a fantastic element; and lovers of deep meaning will pay attention to the lack of obvious morality. The most impressionable viewer may indignantly point to what he considers to be excessive naturalism. At the same time, the work of Vincenzo Natalie is unique in its own way and is quite recommended for viewing by fans of science fiction, containing a certain amount of philosophical fabrications.
After the novel by H.G. Wells “The Island of Dr. Moreau”, which was published in 1896 and was repeatedly filmed, the idea of crossing people and animals and creating their genetic hybrids (“chimeras”) continues to excite the minds of not only those who want the thrill of readers, but also biologists who conducted and continue to conduct experiments on interspecies and intergeneration. Some of these experiments at different times received publicity and caused a wide public outcry. But most of them, understandably, hide behind a curtain of secrecy and are little known to the general public.
Addressing this theme of film masters is connected with two main ideas. First, with the idea of “transforming” a person into another being (for example, a werewolf) and the metamorphoses that occur at the same time, both internal and external. Secondly, with the more fundamental idea of combining human and animal entities in a single shell, which in mythology and ethics are usually rigidly opposed to each other. The first idea finds parallels in the traditional carnival, where people are freely "turned" into beasts, and is usually exploited in fantasy or has a comical embodiment, as in, for example, the film "Animal" (2001, with Rob Schneider). The second idea inevitably leads to reflections on the “right of the Creator”, and everything created within its framework is in one way or another religious and philosophical in nature. Does man have the right to interfere in the affairs of the Creator and impose his understanding of the expediency of Nature? Wouldn’t it be possible that, as a result of the “improvement” of certain animal advantages (strength, quickness of reaction, sharpness of perception), a person would lose much more of his cultural arsenal, acquired over many millennia? And will we not get instead of the “perfect man” without any moral criteria balls from the “Heart of a Dog”?
It is clear that there are always zealots of progress who yearn for our speedy reunion with the natural world. But it’s one thing to stroke and admire a sheep’s soft white coat, and another thing to be in a secret laboratory with a sheepman, as happens with the hero of the movie “Oh, Lucky Man!” (1973, with Malcolm McDowell). As they say, you will not wish on the enemy! This situation is more reminiscent of what happens with the characters of “Aliens” James Cameron and other similar fantastic thrillers, describing the meeting with the inhabitants of other worlds. Even as human-like as in Star Wars, they are more likely to resemble freaks and monsters. That's not surprising. We tend to treat the alien and the unknown as terrible and dangerous. No wonder in the medieval descriptions of residents of distant countries, which in Europe, by the way, did not immediately begin to recognize people, they appear to the reader very similar to outlandish animals.
But back to the movie Chimera. Its creators are clearly acting on the second scenario: questioning the “right of the Creator” and following the precepts of Dr. Frankenstein. The heroes of the film, engaged in artificial synthesis of animal proteins, set themselves the task of creating new organisms that would be more perfect than existing on Earth. And at first they are lucky: creatures like huge slugs successfully reproduce, and substances developed on the basis of their DNA analysis promise huge profits for the corporation. But Clive and Elsa do not want to stop there and, despite existing prohibitions (Frankenstein’s fame haunts them!), continue experiments with crossing human DNA and animal genetic material. And now - oh miracle! - one of the experiments is successful, and its result is the birth of a humanoid monster. Having no children, Elsa immediately attaches herself to him as her own child (directly “Poleno” by Jan Schwankmeier!) and, despite Clive’s persuasion and the threat of exposure with all the ensuing consequences, does everything so that the little monster gradually turns into a feminine creature, who is given the name Dren.
Further plot is easily predictable - with some author's innovations. And here, alas, we have to admit that the efforts spent by the authors were wasted. Because then everything got mixed up in Clive and Elsa's house. There's treason, and incest, and all sorts of unseemly things. And all, of course, in the name of the monster Dren, who for some reason was born with a sting in the tail (apparently, the creators generously sprinkled him/her scorpion genes!). Well, and this is not the limit: at the moment of the highest excitement, the monster suddenly erupts wings, and he begins to flutter around the neighborhood in a devilish way. Strange, however, was the “recombination”! You rarely see that in a nightmare! Elsa and Clive are the best minds in their field. But they worked as creators of cheap comics. You have to “design” it!
However, if you look closely, you understand that the appearance of Dren can be seen the influence of both “Avatar” (the premiere of the films took place with a difference of a couple of months), and medieval engravings and paintings with the image of the Devil. Bosch looks out of each of his/her hoofs. That, I think, is the problem. The film of the Avatar era was shot more in the style of the 1920-30s, when, of course, the “unnatural” creature created by man could not be anything other than a “devil spawn”. Intriguing at first, the film in the final dumps on the viewer a sea of cheap thrash, which and discuss there is no desire ... The saddest thing is that this is another failed project by Adrian Brody – like “Doll” or “King Kong”. There is nothing to say about the other actors. Cheap. Flat. Stupid.
3 out of 10
Perfect creation How many times in the cinema, experienced technicians and mad scientists did not try to grow something magnificent, with good goals, as many times this something fell into rage, escaped and spoiled the life of others in all possible ways. The painting by Vincenzo Natalie tries to somehow dilute the genre with its existence, scraps of phrases, hinting at some new motives, and in fact makes a big leap from “My Fair Lady” to “Jeepers Creepers”. Heroes Adrian Brody and Sarah Polly are grown in the laboratory of creepy creatures, in order to synthesize protein. Developments are quite successful, and the long-awaited experiments on human DNA are soon embodied despite moral and ethical principles and official prohibitions. Some time later, this perfect creature gets out of control, bringing fear and horror, as befits in good horror. The situation is aggravated by side semantic lines that address child abuse, incest and the so-called Electra complex. All this is superficial, barely distinguishable and clearly does not require analysis. The only question raised by the film is whether the sex scene between the creature and Brody's character is zoophilia or incest. Otherwise, “laboratory horror” is simple as two pennies, from start to finish, predictable and easy to serve. The emphasis on horrors is achieved by a separate exploitation of known methods, whether it is a large-scale bloody mess or a sharp dragging the character somewhere upwards, winged by the creation of human experiments. Vincenzo Natalie plays with family acute problems, against the background of the experiments of scientists, and it is clear to the naked eye that the film was supposed to delve into key thoughts, but elementary confused, just like its characters. As a result, in a pile of deaths, no one is even sorry, there can be no talk of drama and seriousness, and the final “jeepers-creepers” is perhaps the only reason why the film was worth watching at all, in order to imbue with at least some details of the atmosphere. At the same time, the visual part causes delight: the performance of monsters, makeup and graphics, each correctly constructed angle, beautiful scenes of eroticism. However, the visual potential is not as wide-spread as this film could potentially grow. It lacks something that can hook, brightly and effectively cut into memory and make you watch a similar movie again. Dren herself, although she has some chances to acquire cultism, as an original new movie monster, but still the film is unlikely to cause the desire to watch it again. And for once it is quite decent entertainment horror, made qualitatively and made according to all the canons of its own small sub-genre about such experimental creatures. And there is no need to dig deeper where they simply forgot to bury something concrete, scattering an attractive heap of novelty and versatility of the semantic basis outside. It's a good horror story, no more, no less. 7 out of 10 Original
