A glimpse of our possible future - a thriller, exploring some of the less than desirable possibilities of human cloning. The casting has a comfortable feel ... Kelly McGillis as the attractive intelligent researcher, similar to her Top Gun character Charlie; Larry Hagman, in JR form, as bad guy and Jason Gedrick as the clones - not a big stretch from his bad boy Neal Avedon in Murder One. All were well played, though the screenplay was somewhat lacklustre compared to Follett's superb writing. Not must see cinema - but a pleasant diversion for a couple of evenings. 7/10
7 Reviews
This happens when promising stories are dragged into the mud
xlars30 March 2001
Ken Follett is a great actor. His books are vivid. So vibrant. So descriptive. And when the movie-makers don't even bother to use his descriptions of the characters, when casting something is going down the drain. A much better choice for the part as Jeannie Ferrami would be Sandra Bullock. Kelly McGillis is way too old. Larry Hagman doesn't have the physical appearance to suit the role as Berrington Jones. Jason Gedrick is a pretty good choice for playing the clones, but there's bound to be someone out there suiting even better. I would have considered Edward Norton. He can be both nice and bad - in a great, and very descriptive way. HEY HOLLYWOOD! Try again! Make something better!!!
A pretty exciting cloning TV movie.
OllieSuave-00727 March 2015
This is a pretty exciting TV movie where Kelly McGillis of Top Gun fame stars as a doctor who is in danger after stumbling upon a secret cloning operation.
It's not a bad movie with its steady pacing and adequate acting, generating enough suspense to keep the movie engaging. Kelly McGillis, though, was a little mediocre in her performance and Jason Gedrick played an OK antagonist.
When I first saw the movie on TV, it was split up in three parts throughout a period of three nights, like a mini-series. So, I was always looking forward to it being shown on TV in order to find out the conclusion.
The script does have some loose plot holes, but it has some good moments. It is worth the watch.
Grade B-
It's not a bad movie with its steady pacing and adequate acting, generating enough suspense to keep the movie engaging. Kelly McGillis, though, was a little mediocre in her performance and Jason Gedrick played an OK antagonist.
When I first saw the movie on TV, it was split up in three parts throughout a period of three nights, like a mini-series. So, I was always looking forward to it being shown on TV in order to find out the conclusion.
The script does have some loose plot holes, but it has some good moments. It is worth the watch.
Grade B-
A thriller pertaining to cloning
grover-625 October 1998
A rather politically motivated thriller detailing a University researcher's discovery of secret cloning experiments at a large genetics company. When her life is endangered by the evil creater of the experiments (played by Hagman), she must seek out each of the genetic clones in order to prove her claims to an unbelieving public.
A science fiction take on the old "nature versus nurture" question
myriamlenys31 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Take an individual human being. Now multiply that human being seven, eight, ten, twelve... times, somewhere during the embryo phase, and let him / let them grow up in different circumstances. What would be the result, some twenty or twenty-five years after the birth of the bouncing babies ? One clearly recognizable personality ? A multitude of completely unrelated personalities ? Or would the world see some sort of a continuum, ranging, say, from a lovable scamp with an eye for the ladies over a daring rake to a violent rapist ?
It's the classic "nature versus nurture" debate. Here, in "The third twin", the debate gets a vigorous modern work-out, with a plot about illegal cloning. (Actor Jason Gedrick is to be commended for his ability to sustain a variety of roles, although I get the impression that he might be slightly too old for the character / for the characters.)
There's a plot hole here and there, but on the whole it's a pretty entertaining movie which raises some interesting ethical and philosophical questions. (At least I saw it as a movie, it might also have served as a mini-series.) Still, the movie itself seemed somewhat shaky where its grasp on ethics was concerned. "The third twin" features a woman scientist who is bold, intelligent, enterprising, caring - in other words, a fine heroine and a good role model for women and girls. Where appropriate, she also likes to give the other characters a well-deserved earful about their own ethical shortcomings. However, even this sterling creature has some problems with boundaries. For instance, there's an episode where she tells an unsuspecting young man (who has always believed that he was an only child) that he might have an identical twin living somewhere - and what's more, she tells him this with a certain degree of insouciance, in the same way you and I might tell a young man that his maths are good but his modern languages are slipping. Jesus Christ - who does such a thing ? And in such a fashion ?
The movie also insists that a certain behaviour by the female scientist wasn't a breach of privacy, where that almost certainly WAS a breach of privacy. As a result it might be wise not to adopt the movie as your moral compass through difficult times...
A small tip : if you watch the movie, don't get too distracted by Larry Hagman's caterpillar eyebrows. At a certain point I found myself gazing at these eyebrows with such bemused concentration that I quite forgot to follow the plot.
It's the classic "nature versus nurture" debate. Here, in "The third twin", the debate gets a vigorous modern work-out, with a plot about illegal cloning. (Actor Jason Gedrick is to be commended for his ability to sustain a variety of roles, although I get the impression that he might be slightly too old for the character / for the characters.)
There's a plot hole here and there, but on the whole it's a pretty entertaining movie which raises some interesting ethical and philosophical questions. (At least I saw it as a movie, it might also have served as a mini-series.) Still, the movie itself seemed somewhat shaky where its grasp on ethics was concerned. "The third twin" features a woman scientist who is bold, intelligent, enterprising, caring - in other words, a fine heroine and a good role model for women and girls. Where appropriate, she also likes to give the other characters a well-deserved earful about their own ethical shortcomings. However, even this sterling creature has some problems with boundaries. For instance, there's an episode where she tells an unsuspecting young man (who has always believed that he was an only child) that he might have an identical twin living somewhere - and what's more, she tells him this with a certain degree of insouciance, in the same way you and I might tell a young man that his maths are good but his modern languages are slipping. Jesus Christ - who does such a thing ? And in such a fashion ?
The movie also insists that a certain behaviour by the female scientist wasn't a breach of privacy, where that almost certainly WAS a breach of privacy. As a result it might be wise not to adopt the movie as your moral compass through difficult times...
A small tip : if you watch the movie, don't get too distracted by Larry Hagman's caterpillar eyebrows. At a certain point I found myself gazing at these eyebrows with such bemused concentration that I quite forgot to follow the plot.
A film fine and interesting
antoniodalfonso-167-57899120 January 2019
It surprised you. You who love this sort of thriller, this sort of film most people toss aside as being of second or third order.
You know, No big name, no naked beauties, no super thin unshaven men... how can you even tell people that this sort of film
Is better than most of the stuff you are told is great. You have to admit it, you have to say, Yes, I enjoyed this film. No vulgarity, but a lot of intended sexuality, corruption, a great story line, adapted from Follet's novel (it seems you have to buy the novel, because it is better than the film but the film is amazing, so you tell yourself, that story can't be true, but I will order myself a copy...), you love the music, the plot twists that never stop, the acting, they are all absolutely refined. Kelly McGillis awesome, Gedrick oustanding -- you'll know why -- watch it again. That's what I did.
Great movie, good plot, excellent acting by Kelly Mc Gillis
ricciolo22 March 2001
Not a fervent moviegoer, but was intrigued by the name of the leading actress, could not remember at first if it was "her" I saw in Witness. I must say that she supported the part of Dr Ferrami very well and her performance was very credible. I'd give her an A plus for it. Now that there is a lot of talk about cloning a human being, this movie is very actual, it got my attention from start to finish. Francis
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
