One of the worst Sci-Fi/Paranormal flicks I've seen in a very long time. If they tried to make another "Fantastic Voyage", they definitely missed the mark. The plot was lousy, the acting was terrible, and I'm sorry, but White Blood Cells cannot eat through metal. Don't waste your money or your time either buying or renting this sorry excuse for entertainment!
31 Reviews
Lance's Innerspace
movieman_kev6 July 2009
Disgraiced former-FBI, Richard Gaynes (Lance Henriksen), a year after the government had canned him after a terrorism case went horribly wrong, has to go through the highly experimental gambit of being shrunk down to microscopic size and to join a team of equally diminutive people in order to retrieve a biological bomb that has been embedded inside a terrorist's body before he dies and everything blows up. Gaynes is also assisting the cold fish, Dr. Saverini (Robin Givens), whom he's attracted to for some reason.
I wanted to like this film simply on the basis that Lance Henriksen is a favorite actor of mine, and it was serviceable enough until we get to the 'Innerspace' storyline. When Lance set's foot on the ship his character who before had been calm, cool and collected reverts into an awe-struck schoolboy-type that is either constantly asking repetitive questions (especially about 'the whites') or exclaiming how awed he is. Givens is little better as the cold fish with a 'sweet interior', while the other two shipmates are completely and utterly worthless. The film itself lacked any kind of excitement and i found myself getting bored long before the film was over.
My Grade: D
I wanted to like this film simply on the basis that Lance Henriksen is a favorite actor of mine, and it was serviceable enough until we get to the 'Innerspace' storyline. When Lance set's foot on the ship his character who before had been calm, cool and collected reverts into an awe-struck schoolboy-type that is either constantly asking repetitive questions (especially about 'the whites') or exclaiming how awed he is. Givens is little better as the cold fish with a 'sweet interior', while the other two shipmates are completely and utterly worthless. The film itself lacked any kind of excitement and i found myself getting bored long before the film was over.
My Grade: D
Future "Golden Turkey" award winner!
Kryten-1519 February 2003
If you like "Worst of Hollywood" or "Mystery Science Theater 3000" you'll love the made-for-TV movie "Antibody" on the Sci-Fi channel. Essentially it's a remake of "The Fantastic Journey", but without Raquel Welch, no body-tight uniforms and without any originality or 60s appeal. It adds a new! twist! to the movie with some nutter that's set a nuclear device somewhere in Europe (who cares if only Europeans die, huh?), but that's really immaterial to the joy of watching early 60s Star Trek-style camera shakes, $150 sets, and *the* most wooden acting that would make 50s B-movie stars cringe. It's not that Robin Givens or Lance Henriksen are bad actors -- it's just proves that anyone given bad direction, bad sets, an awful rehashed plot (set cliches to "kill" !) and dialogue so corny that the sense of the actors suffering through this is palpable. IMDB users have *very* generously given the movie 3.8 our of 10. The only point to this movie that I can see is to make "Battlefield Earth" look like a good movie. And, just like that movie, this is a movie that is best enjoyed with a few friends, a few more beers, and a willingness to laugh *at* a movie rather than *with* it, and from that viewpoint it is worth every one of those hard-earned 3.8 stars.
So Bad Its Fabulous
jamb588 December 2002
This movie has to be one of the worst ever made. That said though, its so bad it becomes brilliant. The script, the plot, the acting, the accents, the rip offs from fantastic journey and innerspace are pure cheek. Go see!
An un-"Fantastic Voyage"
j-bielak23 June 2003
An unimpressive, uninspired rip-off of the 1966 classic `Fantastic Voyage` about as suspenseful as Corn Flakes. `Antibody' is basically a low budget made for TV movie built around some CGI graphics, rather then a good (or remotely interesting) story. Don't even get me started about the ship interior sets. Available on DVD, I'm sure it would make an adequate coaster.
Very bad
mismerize9 February 2003
Don't waste your time watching this movie. I almost switched the channel, but I thought well just maybe it will get better. NOT! Such Poor directing, and terrible acting with the exception for Lance Henriksen and William Zabka-(Karate kid) though William part is short. Lance must be in need of money or offers are slim pickings to star in movies. Oh, and Robin Givens is also in this, not that she offered much in helping this movie.
anyway: People were thrown in front of the camera making you wonder what the heck was the point, why were they even there. Oh, maybe it was so they could say "hey I was in a movie", all of 5 seconds. oh and the plot, wait what was it? hum?
anyway: People were thrown in front of the camera making you wonder what the heck was the point, why were they even there. Oh, maybe it was so they could say "hey I was in a movie", all of 5 seconds. oh and the plot, wait what was it? hum?
Worst Movie Ever!!
flnca21 February 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I've seen this movie (in the German, lip-synchronized version) for the first time on the German Sci Fi Channel tonight, and my impression after seeing it was that the script for this movie must have probably fit on a napkin. As a German, I was doubly offended by this movie, because it unintentionally portrays a parallel world version of Germany in which human rights and freedom of press do not exist. Did they fear that droves of US-Americans would have wanted to emigrate to Germany, had they shown it like it really is? The "German" "police outfits" were simply green overalls with green baseball caps. The clichés (or fears) of uninformed US-Americans about Germans were largely satisfied (bold, mean, Nazi-like, etc.), everything a US tourist could fear that could happen to him/her (being arrested for no reason, having no right to call a lawyer, etc.). That the filmmakers did not even bother to get informed about Germany is speaking volumes about this movie.
Other bad aspects about the movie are the boring visuals (even in the CG scenes), as if only a couple of blood cells would bumble along the blood vessels, and the thin storyline. Oftentimes CG scenes were cut between acting scenes that were entirely unrelated to each other (like, when they discover the sender device, no image of it is shown, instead some outside fighting scenes showing the vessel). The disarmament scene is only partially shown (when the CIA guy wants to remove the numbered pylons from the chip, only a second of it is shown, then the film jumps to the next scene), ruining even the final scenes.
This movie certainly deserves a number of Golden Raspberries...
Other bad aspects about the movie are the boring visuals (even in the CG scenes), as if only a couple of blood cells would bumble along the blood vessels, and the thin storyline. Oftentimes CG scenes were cut between acting scenes that were entirely unrelated to each other (like, when they discover the sender device, no image of it is shown, instead some outside fighting scenes showing the vessel). The disarmament scene is only partially shown (when the CIA guy wants to remove the numbered pylons from the chip, only a second of it is shown, then the film jumps to the next scene), ruining even the final scenes.
This movie certainly deserves a number of Golden Raspberries...
I don't understand how this movie get such a high rating on IMDb
EShy3 May 2008
I mean, 3.5, really? terrible acting and even worse writing.
The screenwriter should have picked up a book about screen writing first.
While in their ship, the dialog keeps going back and forth between "it's the first time humans ever did this" lines to "if you think this is bad wait till you see what's next" from the "experienced" people. It's the first time they do it, but they can sleep throughout the mission because they are used to it
In a way, the terrible writing made me feel bad for the actors, it's hard to deliver bad dialog while your depressed that this is the only type of movie you can get
this movie isn't even a bad movie, or A movie
The screenwriter should have picked up a book about screen writing first.
While in their ship, the dialog keeps going back and forth between "it's the first time humans ever did this" lines to "if you think this is bad wait till you see what's next" from the "experienced" people. It's the first time they do it, but they can sleep throughout the mission because they are used to it
In a way, the terrible writing made me feel bad for the actors, it's hard to deliver bad dialog while your depressed that this is the only type of movie you can get
this movie isn't even a bad movie, or A movie
...would have liked to be Fantastic Voyage when it grew up.
peterbp1 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
As others have made clear already, this movie is an obvious "Fantastic Voyage" wannabe - the plot is a altered knockoff of the concept of the source of inspiration. However, the screenwriter didn't bother to give anything other than the mandatory similarities between the two any real attention.
Apart from the plot, what is wrong with this movie? In short, everything; props, effects, the cast and their acting (in a very polished way, if that makes any sense).
All this is NOT compensated by throwing Lance Henriksen in, which despite his solid rep as a star actor (with the added fact that he in his age has acquired distinct Clint Eastwood-ish AND Malcolm McDowell-ish looks, which isn't a bad thing to claim you have :), only makes the whole thing seem even more pathetic, as his role is more or less entirely to
1) blow off the occasional eye-rollingly lame line 2) to sit and look comically befuddled by the "voyage" that is eventually undertaken. 3) try to abate the comically poor acting of the rest of the cast
Also, inspiration seems to have been gathered from the series "Millenium" as well. Perhaps LH was comically touched by the unreality of being suckered into starring in a flick as poorly written and executed by this.
Apart from the plot, what is wrong with this movie? In short, everything; props, effects, the cast and their acting (in a very polished way, if that makes any sense).
All this is NOT compensated by throwing Lance Henriksen in, which despite his solid rep as a star actor (with the added fact that he in his age has acquired distinct Clint Eastwood-ish AND Malcolm McDowell-ish looks, which isn't a bad thing to claim you have :), only makes the whole thing seem even more pathetic, as his role is more or less entirely to
1) blow off the occasional eye-rollingly lame line 2) to sit and look comically befuddled by the "voyage" that is eventually undertaken. 3) try to abate the comically poor acting of the rest of the cast
Also, inspiration seems to have been gathered from the series "Millenium" as well. Perhaps LH was comically touched by the unreality of being suckered into starring in a flick as poorly written and executed by this.
Worth a Sunday Afternoon
Hibber24 August 2003
This movie is what I like to call the Sunday evening of distraction.
Sure its derivative of Fantastic Voyage, or even of the dreadfull Innerspace, but that doesn't prevent it from being a reasonable amount of entertainment.
The actors tried to act in the "hard science" atittude that authors like Clarke, Asimov, of Bradbury would deserve, but the script just couldn't hold it.
Take this movie for what its worth , a couple of hours distraction, and you won't feel like you have wasted your time.
Its an average movie worth an average afternoon when there is nothing but Animal Cop on Animal Planet on tv to watch.
Sure its derivative of Fantastic Voyage, or even of the dreadfull Innerspace, but that doesn't prevent it from being a reasonable amount of entertainment.
The actors tried to act in the "hard science" atittude that authors like Clarke, Asimov, of Bradbury would deserve, but the script just couldn't hold it.
Take this movie for what its worth , a couple of hours distraction, and you won't feel like you have wasted your time.
Its an average movie worth an average afternoon when there is nothing but Animal Cop on Animal Planet on tv to watch.
An Average Action/Science Fiction Movie
loveablejohn-4662914 March 2019
This movie had excellent special effects for the most part and the cinematography was good despite some mistakes. The actors did a good job considering the script could have been better as it had some unrealistic scenes along with a plot hole at the end.
Too Funny
Bsqrd22 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This film is hilarious. It is so poorly made it's fun to watch. I guess this could have been a good novel, combining terrorism and science fiction. However, the writer of the screenplay obviously has some problems. Like a total lack of talent. There are plot lines that are disconnected all over the place. Some really nice concepts are born, and then dropped. Characters appear and disappear for no reason, and none of the characters have any dimension to them.
You'll enjoy this film more if you go into it looking for the things that make a good film great.
This film has none of them.
So in a paradoxical way, it makes it a great film.
You'll enjoy this film more if you go into it looking for the things that make a good film great.
This film has none of them.
So in a paradoxical way, it makes it a great film.
Gastoni Pauls steals the movie
os2user-119 February 2004
I am sure Mr. Gaston Pauls will be talked about for years to come for his performance in this movie. He has the expression of a lobotomized psychiatric patient. Calling him dull is a gross underestimation of just how tedious this guy is.
The rest of the cast aren't much better. This movie has the personality of a damp sponge and the appeal of a moldy sweat sock.
The rest of the cast aren't much better. This movie has the personality of a damp sponge and the appeal of a moldy sweat sock.
A pure waste of your time.
johnbits7 December 2003
Echoing the majority of comments here, this is a horrible ripoff of 'Fantastic Voyage'. With the exception of a few lines added for comic relief, the film as someone else suggested would be best used as fodder for a revived film-spoofing voice-over show. Robbin Givens and the newscaster looked a bit pleased to be seen in anything, but the rest of the cast seemed to be in pain (understandably). Heinricksen appears to have a hemorrhoid problem during his FBI review, or maybe he is just looking for the stage exit door to escape his agreement to do this film. It seems every opportunity was taken to waste chances to choose logical, practical, entertaining or otherwise valuable approaches to each scene. Some of the most ludicrous: seats with no harnesses, Star Wars fighting within the blood vessels, a terrorist who wakes up but does not even flinch during during several deep needles in the neck as he pretends to sleep, and the entire 'deactivation' of the detonator scene! Why did Zabka leave Mr. Miagi behind--we needed him to kick this one into the trash!
This One's for You, Leonard Pinth-Garnell
r-schrager-620-89894728 December 2009
Exceedingly bad in all aspects, but you can't look away. If Mystery Science Theater 3000 was still out there, this would be at the top of their list. The plot is shamelessly stolen from "Fantastic Voyage" without an acknowledging nod or a wink. The twists - as they are - can be seen coming from a mile away. The special effects must have been gleaned from cuttings from FVs cutting room floor. The dialog appears to have been the result of a bet among the writers to see how many times they could use the s-word. This one is a treat right from the opening credits to the last line of dialog. Must be watched without commercial interruption, otherwise you may be tempted to turn it off.
Irredeemable rubbish!
TheLittleSongbird22 July 2012
I saw Antibody in the first place because I quite like Lance Henrikssen, despite the fact that it sounded derivative and looked cheap. But I was really not expecting Antibody to be so awful in every aspect. In hindsight the film looked cheap, but I was expecting the actual film to be better than it initially seemed. No chance. Antibody is dully lit and is the worst edited film that I've seen in a long time, everything is all jumpy and there are even some things that were only partially shown. On top of that the effects are crude-looking and never looked convincing. Audibly, Antibody wasn't much better, the music is generic and sluggish-sounding, while the sound effects are both bizarre and misplaced. The script is just terrible, all the dialogue feels stilted and heavy-handed in tone, while the story just didn't engage with the storytelling itself predictable and repetitive also in the latter part of the film. The characters are not just clichéd, they are also underdeveloped and I didn't care for them one bit. The acting is poor, Lance Henrikssen must have realised how bad the script was because he uttered every line as though he was in pain, and who can blame him. Robin Givens is little improvement, having next to nothing to do. All in all, an embarrassingly rubbish film with no redeeming qualities. 1/10 Bethany Cox
Very "Qualified" performance
adawson19 February 2003
Lance Henriksen is a favourite of ours, but we were disappointed with the plot of this work - it did not live up to expectations! There was no logical explanation for his daughter, although her mother was of Eastern European extraction, having a heavy accent. His character could not have advanced to become Chief of Security on the basis of such bumbling lack of skill as shown here!
Novel idea, poor execution
dicksosa20 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
In the style of the half budget b-grade sci-fi films Antibody delivers just about what it promises. Low quality acting, writing, sets and special effects. The film takes at least a novel approach in trying to come up with a new idea for a sci-fi film. Gaynes, played by Lance Henriksen, is a bomb specialist who botches an assignment. However it was a mistake because the technology was brand new. The unlikely hero finds himself in the right place at the right time when the technology comes around again. That new technology being the bomb detonator being implanted in the person themselves and linked to their vitals. The person with the detonator dies, the bomb goes off. So how do you figure out how to disarm the bomb. While you shrink yourself down in a ship that can travel the human body and disarm the bomb. From ridiculous dialog too poor acting this movie is mostly a waste of time. There is a scene in which two characters, who are members of the shrunken crew, discuss the fact that they have to lie about what they do for a living to their parents. The first states " my parents still think I work at Starbucks." The response, "I told my parents I'm in the XFL" "Aren't you worried they will find out you are lying?" "Are you kidding no one watches the XFL." Buh dun clash... There the best part of the movie removed so you can save the two hours it cost me to watch it.
cheap low budget movie that has its good moments
Avoura10 December 2004
This was an interesting movie with a decent plot, but poorly made. The budget was obviously low and they spent most of it on the special effects and the ship that went inside the man. The effects were quite good, especially the white cells and the parasites in the blood.
The first part of the film which sets the scenario was poorly written with corny dialog and bad acting. Seems like most of the actors were from the school of bad acting or the school of overacting. Robin Givens gave a good performance, and Lance Henriksen as Dr Gaynes was reasonable, but in the first part of the film his acting was not so good. The terrorists were badly played, as was the ANN reporter, who asked a German "you must have heard of us, we are the American News Network" -- unfortunately he had not, and nor has the audience of course. Those playing Germans were not believable, except maybe for the bald guy who worked in the lab as the one in charge.
As for the science, it was lacking a bit. We can all say that shrinking people and machinery to microscopic size is not possible, but the science behind it should have been more believable in the film. For example, Dr Gaynes asks how small the ship was going to be shrunk too, but Dr Saverini was too vague in her answer. I expected an exact measurement in nanometers. Perhaps the makers did not know what a nanometer was? And it was totally unbelievable that a German terrorist (who actually turned out to be from South America) would state a distance as 50 miles. He would have said "80 kilometers". Only Americans and British people use miles.
I also thought the romance between Richard Gaynes and Rachel was very contrived and not done well. The romance between the other 2 on the ship was quite good but it ended tragically, which made it a waste of time.
Overall I think the makers had some good ideas but had no idea on how to make them work properly overall, and if there had been more backing financially and better acting and scriptwriting, it could have worked so much better. There was no build up of suspense at all in the first part, and no real emotion or reason to be interested in the characters until after Dr Gaynes went into the ship.
Worst part of the film: near the start, when the villains are in the van and seen for the first time and they say something, that was done so badly I was starting to think the film was a comedy. Best part of the film: the attack of the white cells in t he blood.
The first part of the film which sets the scenario was poorly written with corny dialog and bad acting. Seems like most of the actors were from the school of bad acting or the school of overacting. Robin Givens gave a good performance, and Lance Henriksen as Dr Gaynes was reasonable, but in the first part of the film his acting was not so good. The terrorists were badly played, as was the ANN reporter, who asked a German "you must have heard of us, we are the American News Network" -- unfortunately he had not, and nor has the audience of course. Those playing Germans were not believable, except maybe for the bald guy who worked in the lab as the one in charge.
As for the science, it was lacking a bit. We can all say that shrinking people and machinery to microscopic size is not possible, but the science behind it should have been more believable in the film. For example, Dr Gaynes asks how small the ship was going to be shrunk too, but Dr Saverini was too vague in her answer. I expected an exact measurement in nanometers. Perhaps the makers did not know what a nanometer was? And it was totally unbelievable that a German terrorist (who actually turned out to be from South America) would state a distance as 50 miles. He would have said "80 kilometers". Only Americans and British people use miles.
I also thought the romance between Richard Gaynes and Rachel was very contrived and not done well. The romance between the other 2 on the ship was quite good but it ended tragically, which made it a waste of time.
Overall I think the makers had some good ideas but had no idea on how to make them work properly overall, and if there had been more backing financially and better acting and scriptwriting, it could have worked so much better. There was no build up of suspense at all in the first part, and no real emotion or reason to be interested in the characters until after Dr Gaynes went into the ship.
Worst part of the film: near the start, when the villains are in the van and seen for the first time and they say something, that was done so badly I was starting to think the film was a comedy. Best part of the film: the attack of the white cells in t he blood.
Okay, I'll try and make this as painless as possible ...
taxman200130 January 2003
Think FANTASTIC VOYAGE.
Think INNERSPACE.
Now think ANTIBODY.
Yep it's the much overlooked (but always excellent) concept of miniaturization brought upto date with terrorists, nuclear bombs and those great big white blood cells.
After enjoying Christian McIntire's film THE LOST VOYAGE (also starring the ever excellent Lance Henriksen) I kept my eye out for his other directorial efforts.
Basic plot: terrorists now use nano technology to have detonators implanted in their body's so that should they die the the bomb will explode. Enter terrorist with nukes planted across the world and detonator in his body. Enter ex-FBI Agent Lance Henriksen who - after Mr Terrorist is shot - is injected, along with Robin Givens, into said nasty man to find the detonator and "disarma" it.
There are some nice nods to FANTASTIC VOYAGE and INNERSPACE. In my spends-too-much-time-sitting-on-his-backside-and-watches-films opinion the most notably are the room in where The Helix (the submarine in which our heroes travel) is shrunk which has a familiar FANTASTIC VOYAGE ceiling and those red blood cells which seem to have come directly from the INNERSPACE set.
Not that I'm complaining (if I had to then it would be about Robin Givens performance but hey, I even warmed to her character in the end). Far from it.
Give me more. In fact maybe this could be the basis for a new tv show?
Think INNERSPACE.
Now think ANTIBODY.
Yep it's the much overlooked (but always excellent) concept of miniaturization brought upto date with terrorists, nuclear bombs and those great big white blood cells.
After enjoying Christian McIntire's film THE LOST VOYAGE (also starring the ever excellent Lance Henriksen) I kept my eye out for his other directorial efforts.
Basic plot: terrorists now use nano technology to have detonators implanted in their body's so that should they die the the bomb will explode. Enter terrorist with nukes planted across the world and detonator in his body. Enter ex-FBI Agent Lance Henriksen who - after Mr Terrorist is shot - is injected, along with Robin Givens, into said nasty man to find the detonator and "disarma" it.
There are some nice nods to FANTASTIC VOYAGE and INNERSPACE. In my spends-too-much-time-sitting-on-his-backside-and-watches-films opinion the most notably are the room in where The Helix (the submarine in which our heroes travel) is shrunk which has a familiar FANTASTIC VOYAGE ceiling and those red blood cells which seem to have come directly from the INNERSPACE set.
Not that I'm complaining (if I had to then it would be about Robin Givens performance but hey, I even warmed to her character in the end). Far from it.
Give me more. In fact maybe this could be the basis for a new tv show?
Do not watch this film unless you are writing a thesis on bad films.
ryansternmd5 December 2009
This is a blatant ripoff of "Fantastic Voyage". I can not find anything to recommend this film. If pressed, I can only say that it is better than single hand held super 8 video movies that make it to cable to feed the market for soft porn slasher flicks. This movie insults the intelligence of the viewer at every level. The science is wrong. Even a 7th grade science student could find the errors. The film is set in Germany, but they did not film it in Germany, hire any German actors or even have a dialog coach give any of the actors German accents. Every aspect of production is only a step above amateur and student films. The only attributes that improve the film are the models and digital effects that had to have been used to show a submarine navigate the blood vessels of the film's antagonist. My lingering question is why did any one make the film?
not the best movie I've seen
GT6007-111 February 2003
While I admit that this movie left something to be desired in the way of story and direction, the fact that Lance Henriksen was cast proved that the best actors can often times save the worst movies. I also must state my displeasure at seeing this on the SCi-Fi channel. This movie, I feel could have been better had the SciFi channel not gotten ahold of it. It had potential, but alas it was never meant to be.
fun & cheesy movie
zombieman197819 August 2005
I would not go as far as calling it a good movie, but it is pure cheese. the acting is mainly awful, cgi effects cheesy, just a fun movie. what Roger Corman would make, except with computers. worth a look. the movie is about a team goes through a terrorist's blood stream to dismantle a tiny detonator for several nukes. it is a bad movie, but a fun one. i would recommend it to fans of bad movies. Lance henrikson is kinda good as an ex-bomb squad officer who is called in to duty. The cgi is hilarious, the acting deplorable, just a enjoyable movie with some of the worst actors i've ever seen, & one of the most confusing romances ever! i don't understand how lance henrikson could get her? oh well.
Fantastic Voyage inspired, some good ideas, poor execution.
rixrex8 August 2004
It sounds like a great idea, remake or do a sequel or such to Fantastic Voyage, a serious one not like Innerspace (good in it's own way). This has a lot of good ideas going for it, the terrorist idea involving a miniature detonator that has to be found and plucked out of the body. I bet the treatment was actually pretty good, but it loses steam in the way it's presented, intermittent pacing, some silliness, weak exposition, missed opportunities, but on the other hand, many parts are exciting and fun to watch, pretty nice effects and some good stuff like lights on the ship (unlike FV where the inner body was somehow miraculously illuminated. Would have liked better science, there seemed to be very little here, more than 4 persons in the ship would have helped, better interplay between the ship and the outside crew, also lacking enough people around the place. Less time spent on the terrorist buildup which could have been dealt with more quickly and with some better exposition, and more time inside the body, etc. Decent, a wasted opportunity of sorts, yet worth a look.
WE WENT TO DELOUSE TOGETHER
nogodnomasters19 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Gaynes (Lance Henriksen) must shrink down and enter the body of a criminal in a mini-sub to get a micro-detonator. He has a daughter, used to work for FBI and Robin Givens is in it. Our bad guy is a caricature of bad guys giving a ridiculous speech. I had to ask, "Is that acting? Is that the scene the director wanted?" He was cheesy.
If you have never seen the film "Fantastic Voyage" I would recommend to watch it instead and avoid this made for TV quality film.
Guide: No swearing, sex, or nudity. No anti-bodies getting ripped off a Rachel Welch.
If you have never seen the film "Fantastic Voyage" I would recommend to watch it instead and avoid this made for TV quality film.
Guide: No swearing, sex, or nudity. No anti-bodies getting ripped off a Rachel Welch.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
