Solemplex
To me, this movie is perfection.
JinRoz
For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!
CrawlerChunky
In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.
Scott LeBrun
Zachary Wheeler (Bradford Dillman), a state senator with great potential, gets into a horrific traffic accident in the opening minutes of this film. It doesn't seem that he will make it, and Harry Walsh (Leslie Nielsen), a reporter who arrives on the scene, accompanies him to Bethesda, where Harry witnesses the senator being whisked away to parts unknown. A cover-up is engineered regarding the senators' whereabouts, and Harry is right to smell a rat. He doggedly pursues his story, despite some risk to life and limb, while a revived Senator Wheeler discovers the incredible medical breakthrough that prolonged his life."The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler" is telling a tried-and-true Dr. Frankenstein-type story (scripted by Jay Simms and Tom Rolf), complete with the expected indignant reaction as the senator can't believe the gall of these doctors. The plot is rather reminiscent of the more well-known "Parts: The Clonus Horror", except that RoZW predates "Parts" by several years. It leads to some effectively creepy moments, and the yarn concocted by Simms & Rolf is utterly absorbing and interesting. The eventual resolution is not very satisfying, but up until then the film is quite fun, with plenty of location shooting in New Mexico, and a quick-thinking, likeable protagonist in the form of Walsh. You have to respect this guy for being so tenacious.The whole cast is great. Dillman and Angie Dickinson, as one of the clinic doctors, strike up a warm relationship, James Daly is authoritative as the not-that-good doctor who's pioneered this revolutionary surgery, and Robert J. Wilke is an appropriately cold-blooded antagonist determined to keep the operations a secret. Other familiar faces like Jack Carter, Don Haggerty, William Bryant, Tristram Coffin, Byron Morrow, Harry Holcombe, and Tyler McVey also turn up.Mildly flashy opening credits do give this the feeling of a classic B picture from decades past, which is fitting, since this was clearly done on a somewhat limited budget. But the moral / ethical questions posed here are still extremely relevant 47 years later.The sole theatrical directing effort for Bob Wynn, who mostly worked in TV.Eight out of 10.
ragsrolf
Hi,I just read your review of "The Resurrection of Zachary Wheeler" posted 15th of June, 2005 . Wow ! You have no idea how that made me feel. I don't know why I typed that old title into Google, maybe just boredom or some weird ego trip, but I am one of the writers of that screenplay along with my then writing partner Jay Simms . It all started with my reading an article in Esquire magazine regarding the possibility of organ transplants . At that time I was working as a Production Coordinator on the TV series " Big Valley" and I mentioned it to Jay who was one of the writers and before we knew it we came up with the idea for a screenplay. It took about 3 weeks and when we finished it we gave it to Jays' agent who said " It's too far out". That turned out to be the general consensus and both Jay and I went on to different things . Eventually it was bought and produced with a very small budget, very evident in the final version but it did have a "far out" premise. I never wrote another screenplay but went on to a career as a film editor but deep down there lurks a frustrated writer. Who knows, maybe I'll try it again. Glad you liked what you saw and you're right, with a few more bucks it could have been a "killer" !Regards,Tom Rolf
Sturgeon54
This film did remind me of the kinds of ideas in Crichton's novels - especially his early medical fiction. Who would have guessed that a now-forgotten low-budget B-movie would actually end up more timely almost 40 years after its original release? I don't know of any earlier film treatments of the subject of cloning than this film - I really wonder what audiences thought when this first came out, as the plot line of the film must have seemed really wild back then. I don't particularly care for remakes - especially of good movies like this - but now would be a terrific time for a remake of this story, possibly with a better budget. As it is, the film stretches its budget pretty well, but I would have appreciated greater attention to the scientific aspects of the cloning (possibly with some special effects). Additionally, because all of the real-life politicians seem to be weighing in on the stem cell and medical ethics issues, the political aspects of the story would fit perfectly into a remake, where they could be fleshed out in greater detail. I guess this movie just has me thinking more of what it could have been than what it is. On its own level, it is a surprisingly thoughtful low-budget film that concentrates on ideas, rather than action. For that, it is well worth searching out.On a final note, it has a ridiculous non-sequitur ending that had me giggling, but the ending seems to fit a cheap movie like this, whose filmmakers certainly couldn't afford a lot of explosions and gunfights .
yortsnave
This is a surprisingly suspenseful and thought-provoking sci-fi movie. Even more topical and relevant today, as cloning and organ transplantation become more mature. To what lengths will we go, what will we pay, to be cured of our worst degenerative diseases and to live almost forever? How much power would an organisation have, that could give us such health and near-immortality?
