I just saw it on video, and well it was bizarre. But obviously, it was meant to be that bizarre and extreme to get the point across about science, morality and the like right? It's just that I'm not quite sure what that point is? Or am I looking to deep and this was just a *beep* movie? Thoughts?
sharethe moral is dont have sex with your experiments
shareThis is what happens when we try to play God.
Elsa and Clive were fools, playing with DNA like it was Lego's.
"What are you some kind of half-assed astronaut?" - 'Quint' in JAWS
Well, actually, no, this is not what happens.
This is what happens when writers who don't know much about biology make a film.
Well said! These kinds of movies cater to conservative preconceptions about genetics-based science, and they're a dime a dozen, despite the obvious talent behind the scenes.
shareI don't think it was attacking Biology as a whole so much as showing that we shouldn't blindly perform experiments, without weighing the moral side of them. yes Dren was created with the intention of good, but she was also a selfish creation, and was mishandled. That led to unforeseen complications, and in the end it shows that the characters failed to learn from their mistake, once again thinking "what's the worst that can happen?" rather than "should we actually allow this to happen?"
shareAGREED 1000%!
sharemaybe thats why its called science FICTION
shareCloser to: don't make your creation your pet or think of it as someone of lesser intelligence or right to live. You like to rub in your god *beep* don't you, is that your answer to everything? Seems pretty dumb to me, but hey, most religious people are to put it simply stupid...
The increase in human knowledge is the cause of the decline of religions.
They both got a little action from Dren.
So don't boink, or be boinked, by you lab experiment.
The moral is that there's a lot of people with really horrible taste in movies to give this trash a 6.2 or whatever it's at right now.
This movie is unbelievably stupid and why anyone is making excuses for it or giving any kind of positive perspective or review boggles the mind.
The ending is bad enough. So, the scientist girl, after everything that happens, is going to bring another creature to life and the director woman or whatever her title was (the French-speaking woman - yeah, I guess she's in charge...gotta have some foreign national in charge) is supporting the idea.
So, the audience is to believe they covered up all those deaths including the other scientist and his brother from the attacks from the creature they created? Yeah, okay. Plus the other employee? Not too far-fetched. Also, the scientists were as dumb as nails. They weren't convincing in their profession and the movie didn't do anything different than others who have the main scientist stars, deranged Dr. Frankenstein-wannabes. I've seen better performances and writing on The Outer Limits! ;)
There's my review. I give it one star.
I absolutely agree. The review at RedBox sounded interesting, and I had absolutely no idea where the movie would lead. It was the most disgusting thing I ever saw. I would give the movie a rating of -50.
shareFinally, someone who thinks it sucks. I rarely comment on movies that are utter trash but I couldn't believe there was a following or that it had a 6 rating on imdb. The imdb audience must be getting worse. :-/
Or it's mostly young teens commenting 99.9% of the time. I'm not sure if there's other explanations.
The movie was stupid.
Or it's mostly young teens commenting 99.9% of the time. I'm not sure if there's other explanations.
"It was the most disgusting thing I ever saw."
so i guess i shouldnt recommend the hills run red, jack ketchum´s the girl next door, the hills have eyes 1 and 2 (remakes) and planet terror. To name a few films personally more disgusting than this one
[deleted]
(the French-speaking woman - yeah, I guess she's in charge...gotta have some foreign national in charge)WTF?
Less than one star. It's absolutely impossible to believe that two supposedly intelligent people, scientists, could do so many stupid things so consistently. Forget the fact that they created a potentially dangerous creature in the laboratory and then failed to keep it properly contained. They left it alone and not constrained over and over again, ignored the fact that half its DNA came from creatures who viciously attacked each other after one of them spontaneously changed its sex, ignored the fact that their creation "died" and then came back to life once, ignored the fact that it had a stinger on its tail and could fly, etc. etc. etc. She treats it like a child, then a pet, then a slave. He ignores the fact that she's nuts, then has sex with it where she can catch him. Nobody is that stupid -- other than people who write movie scripts, I guess, and their target audience of teenage boys. And what's with a creature that has all these powers and abilities, yet mysteriously doesn't ever develop the power of speech except rudimentally at the very end? How convenient is that for people who obviously can't write dialog to begin with? This is the worst kind of "don't go in the attic" horror movie. If it gets one star, it's only for the cinematography, which is competent. The characters are unbelievable, the science is pathetic, the dialog is wooden, the casting is terrible. Forget about whatever message it has or doesn't have. What are they trying to say? How about, "We made a movie, it didn't work, but we're going to release it anyway because we spent a lot of money on it"? Phooey.
shareThis movie was 'Frankenstein', updated for the modern masses. It's the Lord's job to create life, not man's. But for Pete's sake, if you do create life, then guide and nurture it... and certainly don't boink it!
I thought it was more to do with abusive parenting. People bringing a new life into the world without thinking through the implications, or being psychologically ready themselves, only to find they can't handle the responsibility?
I'm sure most abusive parents don't start out intending to be cruel to their kids, but are more focused on their own needs than that of the child, as Clive and Else used Dren to play out their own ambition and damage...
And I suppose abused kids sometimes do retaliate against the parents who treated them that way.
Any thoughts?
ScaryScary, I had not thought of this film in terms of your ideas, and I find them very intriguing. Thanks.
shareAgreed. One abusive parenting leads to another bad parenting situation and has a great potential for the slippery slope it ended up to be.
We could end up with a human society where our empathy is killed off when we keep screwing one another over like this and end up to be cruel parents to unfeeling children.
I almost thought the same thing. Except instead of Frankenstein it reminded me too much of Reefer Madness. Like another user said, this is a heap of baseless fear mongering towards modern scientific advances. I say, to hell with it, let's fabricate a whole race of clones, pretend to cater to their well being(let them believe they have a soul), gain their trust,exploit and enslave them, then kill God. We can do this all by ourselves.
And if that was a movie, it would kick this Splice garbage right in its stupid self entitled mouth.
The overall moral lesson is that humans are permanently ignorant,immoral,born sinners and that and the minute that they crawled out of a cave,starting thinking for themselves and stopped doing what their clergy said the "Invisible SkyDaddy" wants...they were doomed.Sooo...Grab your bible,crawl back into the cave,and beg your skydaddy for forgiveness,because trying new things and thinking for yourself might have negative side-effects. Other moral points are that if your going to try and remake a classic story(Frankenstein),stick somewhat close to the storyline because many(if not most)people will recognize a cheep,commercial sell-out when they see it.On a more personal moral lesson...if your a successful actor(Brody),stay far away from sad commercial crap because bad news travels faster and lives longer than good.
shareA lot of people will try to over analyze this movie and say the moral was to warn humans not to mess around with cloning or whatever, but the truth is, it was just a very lousy movie.
The acting sucked, the story sucked, the effects sucked. The whole movie sucked.
I thoroughly enjoyed it.
The moral is "don't create something you can't control."
Yep - thats exactly right. There is alot of thought about GMO's and the wider consequences - this is just an extreme possibility
----------------------------------------
I don't know what it is, but its weird and pissed off!
[deleted]
But since that will never happen, this movie is just fear-mongering at its finest, pandering to the rubes in exactly the same fashion as the "atomic monster" pictures of the 50's. I suppose it makes sense, in a way, that it was picked up for distribution by the company named after 50's gimmick-meister William Castle.
shareThe one thing I HATE about movies like these is that they make people who don't understand the first thing about genetic research think this is what's it's actually like: like science fiction, and like this is going to be the outcome of gene therapy or splicing or stem cell research. It portrays scientists as complete imbecils that are playing with fire.
Of course bad things can come out of scientific research, but to say that this movie proves that we should just give up and continue to let people suffer and die from diseases and injuries that could potentially be curable, is to give this movie way too much credit.
Take it for what it is: entertainment. Nothing more.