The Speed of Thought

As another reviewer has said, this is very obviously based on a book called The Sensitives by Herbert Burkholz, despite not a word saying so anywhere in the credits.

It's a mediocre adaptation with rather wooden acting, enjoyable enough but not at all as complex or interesting as the book.

The book I enjoyed very much, bought it in 1988 when it was released. I've always wanted to see it made into a film - but one worthy of it.

Great concept, long tedious scenes, could have been a good 1 hour television show. A lot of time is devoted to actors walking about, with tortured expressions. The location shooting in Uruguay seems to be totally irrelevant to the story, they should have saved that budget, for better writing. While on the plus side it does feature a pretty girl, most of the characters are flat, the bad guys are not intimidating, in fact most of them just look constipated. The special effects, look like they were done on my laptop. I am sure the actors were disappointed with the end result, and that Wallace Shawn probably thought it was "Inconceivable" that it would turn out to be such a stinker. You will want the 2 hours of your life back, by the time it is over.

Once in a great while a science fiction film will make you think. Bladerunner wasone. But they spent millions making it. Speed of Thought does it on asmall budget. There's little action but lots of talking. Many reviewers down grade it for that. However, I rate it along side another great all-talk film, Creation of the Humanoids. It gets the same poor reviews by some but many rate it 8-10 stars. Forget running gun battles. Listen to the philosophy. Examine the wonderful plot. Think of the implications. Think.

The leads are adequate but veterans Blair Brown and Wallace Shawn ground the film in reality. The way the telepathy is imagined on film is the best concept I've seen. This is how you make a good film on a small budget.

When I read the synopsis while scrolling through Amazon Prime Video, I said "This is just like that book that I keep in my nightstand". I've had this book for years and pull it out occasionally for a re-read.

I'm really surprised and disappointed that nothing anywhere says it's based on a book. Whole lines are taken directly from the book.

The movie wasn't a bad adaptation - as soon as it started I could remember the whole plot of the book. The special effects were pretty hokey, though.

I really like this film. It is a very small budget, with no large celebrity stars. However, it is so much better than the Mega budget star loaded Marvel kiddie universe "Avengers" films, with big celebrity stars, for example: Scarlett Johansson as "Black Widow", Hugh Jackman as "Wolverine", ad infinitum. They are shallow films with "super powered stars"; geared for the just reaching puberty crowd That is a tremedous money trough for all the producers at Marvel, & whichever studios they partner with. Unfortunately, they are all formulaic, with a single large antagonist against all the "Avenger Team", which has had about 20 different actors in the same or similar roles. Enough about that. This film has depth, with a well thought out plot. All made with a tiny amount of money, & 3 very ralented actors; even if they aren't chased by paparazzi everywhere. I am so sick of the entire comic book medium. It has ruined the quality of great films. This was much better than I thought it would be. Nick Stahl, Taryn Manning and Wallace Shaw are all very good in their parts. A must see. Forget "Batman" "Spiderman", & "Whatever" Man movies: they're boring pablum for the masses.