AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

StunnaKrypto Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Konterr Brilliant and touching

shido-san This movie suffers from a low budget.It seems almost unfair to criticize other elements because with better production values many of the faults simply wouldn't exist. Think of the Mission Impossible TV series compared to even the oldest of Bond films made in that time period.The truly substandard element in the production is the faster-than-light running. It is just fast-motion movie magic of a man jogging, not running. Jason Connery's 'acting' is fine. Lee Majors 'acting' is fine. But, to really enjoy this picture, you have to suspend a lot of disbelief. And, that isn't easily done.There are weaknesses in the Python-Lightspeed story-line. Python: code-name for an industrial terrorist, who just happens to be a man turning into a snake (and this hearkens back to the movie Sssssss) might be stronger than Lightspeed but there are inconsistencies. In no way could he be as fast, even as a fully-developed reptile, which he isn't. And, if we were to follow that idea to its logical end, after he did expend the energy to move faster than men, he would need to stop for lengths of time to recharge his anaerobic reptilian muscles.In some ways, Lightspeed (the movie), suffers from being live-action on a very limited budget. But, let's face it - animations just aren't as much fun, and animations take longer. This is a quick-and-dirty TV movie.

Mikey Okay, I thought with Lee Majors, maybe this movie had some credibility. At least the guy is still working even though it's a c-movie. Yeah, the lead is not appealing in any respects, but hey, it's a c-movie. The effects are awful. Who knows, one of the actors might get a really good role in a major film, and we can all say, remember when...I think an old rerun of the 6 million dollar man or the bionic woman would be better, or even an old Wonder Woman episode.The physical therapy was laughable. The hospital looked like an office building. The faraway speed shots looked good, but the close-ups sucked. The funniest thing that I saw was when Python came in and shot the staff. One of the extras looked up at the blood after he fell down as if he wanted to see if he did it right. I liked the Python get-up and if I was the actor, I would have milked the part for all it was worth.It was Sunday, and there was nothing on, so I had it on in the background while I was working. But I just had to leave a comment. I gave it an extra star for Majors.

adamwho I stumbled on to this movie in the video store and after reading all the outrageously negative comments decided to watch it anyway.While I agree with nearly every poster that this movie was flawed beyond hope I think it might have a second life as a teaching aid in film schools.Some examples: 1. The acting in the opening scene is flat-out painful, much the same way you see in student films.2. Lack of a coherent plot. Great movie houses like Pixar, preach that plot is everything. Every student needs to know this.3. Overly ambitious special effects. If you don't have the budget to blow something up or the skills to make convincing special effects. Then don't do it, use a plot device to get around it.4. Proper casting. If you are going to do a super-hero movie, then cast somebody that at least looks athletic.5. Character development. This movie should have been called Cobra since he was the only compelling character in the whole movie. The main character, presumably, Lightspeed needs to have some development too, after all he does get super-human power, this might change him a little bit.6. Super giant plot holes. You ever wonder why superman doesn't just fly around the world and reverse time when every something bad happens, like he did in that one movie? Well you will be asking your self this over and over in this movie. Lesson, make your super hero's skills consistent! 7. Weird, unnecessary editing in action scenes.8. Lousy gore. If someone is going to be hurt and you don't have a budget to make it look convincing, then don't do the closeup.9. I could go on and on.At least the sound was decent and the camera was in focus

cjmuth_2000 I can't say it's the worst I've seen - but it's bad. I think I might have blinked at a crucial moment, when they provided that one little piece of information that would make sense of ... well, anything. Goes to show that Stan Lee is not infallible - and I thought "Who wants to be a superhero" was cheesy. Lee Major's acting wasn't as good as his usual standards, not that he's a great actor but I think he's done better than this. Nicole Eggert probably showed more depth of character in Baywatch and Charles in Charge. I didn't recognize any of the other actors, but this is probably not something that will play high on their resumes.