Mr. Cranky's rating:
Would cloning human beings be such a bad thing? Ironically, this film presents one of the few situations where it clearly is, and that's when Arnold Schwarzenegger is put in a position to act opposite himself.
This film is a religious, right-wing piece of garbage that tries to turn fear of science into a bible-thumping, anti-cloning message. As a person who could just as easily wipe his ass with the pages of the Bible as read them, attempting to argue against cloning because it's somehow against God's will doesn't hold much sway. I'm sure the same argument was being made when indoor plumbing was introduced to the world or when the electric can opener was invented -- or the can, for that matter. Can't you just hear somebody saying, "If God had wanted food to be in cans, he would have put it there himself." Personally, I think Bible-thumpers should have to crap in buckets and wipe their asses with tree branches if they want to protest cloning.
Once you accept the fact that there is no God, most of the stupidity in the world disappears and people begin to take a more rational approach to things. Would cloning human beings be such a bad thing? Ironically, this film presents one of the few situations where it clearly is, and that's when Arnold Schwarzenegger is put in a position to act opposite himself. It actually happens, and it made me think about becoming a Quaker.
In the movie, Adam Gibson (Schwarzenegger) is accidentally cloned because some anti-cloning extremists shoot Drucker (Tony Goldwyn), a major cloning proponent while he's on board Gibson's chartered plane. So, Drucker's people clone everyone to cover up the shooting and keep anybody from finding out that Drucker can actually clone human beings, which is illegal. The problem here is that Drucker's people think that Gibson's partner, Hank (Michael Rapaport) is Gibson. Before they realize what they've done, there are two Gibsons running around. Yes, the plot is more convoluted than the cloning.
This is one of those films where the filmmakers assume that the idea and the special effects alone will keep people happy. Given how dumb people are, it just might. Unfortunately, there's this little thing called story and another little thing called editing that prove to be oh-so important to the rhythm of the film, which approaches the annoyance level of a baby banging on a pot with a wooden spoon. Director Roger ("Tomorrow Never Dies") Spottiswoode tries for the "Robocop" feeling with some futuristic humor, but like most right-wing humor, it's either pandering or not funny.
Was it really that bad?
You tell us! Discuss "The Sixth Day" in the Mr. Cranky forum below!
Mr. Cranky's Home Page
