Just what I expected

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Blistering performances.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

A long time ago, I saw Desperately Seeking Susan (1985), also directed by Susan Seidelman and I thought that film and story were quite good, and very well produced.I don't think the same about this effort, despite the presence of John Malkovich who gives an adequate performance in a dual role. The supporting cast is also quite good, particularly Laurie Metcalf, whom I recall most from her days on the TV sitcom Roseanne. The story material, however, leaves much to be desired...The problem with the narrative is that, try as I might, I really didn't care about any of the characters. Their vacuous lives amidst the glitz of Miami was a tad overdone, I thought, leaving absolutely no room for any empathy. Instead of being funny, it devolves into campy crassness, which, I grant you is part of that whole scene, way down there in orange juice land.However, instead of trying to overcome that, the story instead uses the presence of an android, named Ulysses, who looks like Malkovich (who must go on a long journey of seven years – yikes, shades of the Odyssey!) – to act as a metaphor for that same vacuity: empty, soulless, without feeling, without hope...And then proceeds to show how even such an empty shell can indeed learn to love and live as we all should. Excuse me? I don't mind suspension of disbelief to carry me through some preposterous narratives, but even science fiction (not science fantasy) must obey the laws and limitations of physics, neuroscience and computer software. This story blithely ignores all such precepts and merely succeeds in making itself look and sound ridiculous.And the ending? Just absurd – absolutely, totally, irrevocably absurd.If you really want to waste 98 minutes of your life, then go ahead and make yourself pay. I had to, in order to do this review, so how do you think I feel now?

If there were more genuine laugh-out-loud moments in this film, it could have achieved more commercial success. OR, if it hadn't been pitched to audiences as a straight comedy, it could have achieved later status over time as a cult film. This is the approach I think the producers should have taken. This would have made a great indie(rather than a mainstream release by the fledgling Orion Pictures) with Ann Magnuson still as the star. Have the actors play it straight as a character study and let the subtle natural comedy shine through. Laurie Metcalf's dingy character would have to be dismissed or toned down a bit, but otherwise this would work with the same quirky charm that made Mystic Pizza (released the following year) a success.As it is, the film is sweet more than it is funny. And it works thanks to John Malkovich's great dual performances and Magnuson's ability to carry a film (the only time she's been allowed to do so before or since--pity). Believe it or not, this was the film in which I discovered them both, and they should still be proud of having it on their resumes, even with all they went on to accomplish.I shouldn't be too hard on Orion, though. After all, they did put out "The Silence of the Lambs", but they also let "Blue Sky" sit on a shelf until they went belly-up and another studio had to release it four years after it was completed. The only flaw is not in this film itself, but in the way it was marketed and what I as an audience member expected going into it. This film deserves rediscovery--and if it gets it, there's the added bonus of '80s nostalgia in the fashions and some of the dialogue.

This film is about what happens when a chemical company hires a PR woman to program their Android when they are worried about losing funding for a deep space program. Right. Ok, as far as I was concerned with a plot like that it was doomed from the start. But I was surprised. It is a measure of the John Malkovich's ability that when he was on the screen, even this movie lost some of its inane quality and actually had a few good moments. This is far from being a good movie but Malkovich does make it almost watchable. Also, there is also enough late 80's technology present in this film that its interesting from a pop history perspective. Seeing folks at the wedding lugging around a camcorder that's larger than my current VCR brought back memories. Also our heroine lugs an old-fashioned Filo-Fax everywhere. Remember those big wheels that held paper cards with contact data?

the movie was far ahead of its time. i just got to watch this film recently in wowow -- a japanese cable channel available here in the philippines -- and as i was watching the film, i thought that the movie was made in 1999 or later. i was very surprised to find in the credits that the film had a copyright year of 1987. amazing!i think that most of the themes of the movie: love, sex, finding the right person, being a loner, were tackled in a timeless manner, such that they are still applicable now as they were 14 years ago.all in all, a great movie. definitely, a must see!