I decided to watch this film because it had an interesting cast and sounded like a remake of "Rosemary's Baby". A valid story line to copy - very archetypal in your Jungian sort of way - many women during pregnancy have, at some stage, felt like their body has been taken over by some force beyond their control. And, if the scriptwriters had just stuck to that, this probably would have been a routine but acceptable movie.
Instead, they seemed to have panicked and decided they needed more plot, lots more plot!! So we have the homophobic literary agent (based in New York - I don't think so) who decides to look a gift horse in the mouth by investigating the financial affairs of her client's new patron (maybe on Mars this would happen). All this frantic activity culminates in her being murdered for some reason that I missed.
Then there's the garbled story about an angel killing a saint (or a saint killing an angel), perfectly encapsulated in a really dreadful painting which we are supposed to believe would be on public display by David Hemmings' character, a supposed art connoisseur. There is an antique-looking tube full of blood (maybe) which belongs either the angel or the saint.
Then there's the fertility clinic which also does cloning as well. This causes great panic among several of the characters, even though there is no evidence that cloning was used. If they did, the ending shows that it clearly wasn't David Hemmings' character who was cloned.
Then there's the scene in the delivery room which is just plain dishonest. We see Heather Graham's abdomen and the scary little scaly things apparently in her womb ("Oh my God, I'm having an iguana!" Now there's a film.). The delivery nurse says "Oh my God!" and the scene fades to black. Next thing we see are the twins at their fourth birthday, looking quite normal if a bit subdued for a pair of four year old girls. So what was the nurse exclaiming over?
And then there's the mystery of what the girls are supposed to be. Are they the Devil, in which case, why are there two of them? Same question if they're supposed to be the angel. They are clearly something supernatural (as the demise of the annoying little boy at the party shows) but what? Angels don't go around melting four year old boys, do they?
Oh, and just to show that my attention really wandered watching this film, is David Hemmings' character Earl Sydney of Wherever, as in a member of the English aristocracy, or is he just Earl Sydney? If the latter, English boys of his age would not have been called Earl. Assuming the character is in fact English and it's not simply that Hemmings realised early on this film wasn't worth doing an accent for.
Instead, they seemed to have panicked and decided they needed more plot, lots more plot!! So we have the homophobic literary agent (based in New York - I don't think so) who decides to look a gift horse in the mouth by investigating the financial affairs of her client's new patron (maybe on Mars this would happen). All this frantic activity culminates in her being murdered for some reason that I missed.
Then there's the garbled story about an angel killing a saint (or a saint killing an angel), perfectly encapsulated in a really dreadful painting which we are supposed to believe would be on public display by David Hemmings' character, a supposed art connoisseur. There is an antique-looking tube full of blood (maybe) which belongs either the angel or the saint.
Then there's the fertility clinic which also does cloning as well. This causes great panic among several of the characters, even though there is no evidence that cloning was used. If they did, the ending shows that it clearly wasn't David Hemmings' character who was cloned.
Then there's the scene in the delivery room which is just plain dishonest. We see Heather Graham's abdomen and the scary little scaly things apparently in her womb ("Oh my God, I'm having an iguana!" Now there's a film.). The delivery nurse says "Oh my God!" and the scene fades to black. Next thing we see are the twins at their fourth birthday, looking quite normal if a bit subdued for a pair of four year old girls. So what was the nurse exclaiming over?
And then there's the mystery of what the girls are supposed to be. Are they the Devil, in which case, why are there two of them? Same question if they're supposed to be the angel. They are clearly something supernatural (as the demise of the annoying little boy at the party shows) but what? Angels don't go around melting four year old boys, do they?
Oh, and just to show that my attention really wandered watching this film, is David Hemmings' character Earl Sydney of Wherever, as in a member of the English aristocracy, or is he just Earl Sydney? If the latter, English boys of his age would not have been called Earl. Assuming the character is in fact English and it's not simply that Hemmings realised early on this film wasn't worth doing an accent for.