Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

Tayyab Torres Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

oldguybc I think whoever tried to interpret this into a screenplay did just a marginally adequate job, even though Dean Koontz is credited as a "co- producer" it is obvious that he had had little say- so in the actual production. The sad part was the attempt to remain true to the story line which was accomplished after a fashion but, sadly at the expense of remaining true to Dean's character development and overall story concept. Casting was adequate but not brilliant. Billy Zane did a fair job at best, while John C. McGinley's portrayal of Yates, which was so very good at first, kind of fell apart at the end as anyone who read the book can see. Both Watchers and Hideaway were disappointing as well, would like to see Life Expectancy but believe the story line would be far too difficult.

wombat_1 My one-line summary for this movie, and most of this critique, seems to hold for most Dean Koontz books/movies that I have read/seen. They are a combination of Stephen King fantasy, horror and mystery; "supported", sort of, by a Michael Crichton "high tech". The combination works well up to a point, but for reasons that I don't quite understand, it doesn't quite become "great". It seems that Koontz isn't quite comfortable with a good fantasy story, that he seems to "need" some kind of scientific justification, which he doesn't.This particular movie/story rolls along quite nicely, a lot of interest, possibly a little too long before the denouement, when we find out what's really going on. But overall, a "very good" movie. I see strong similarities between this movie and "Phantoms" in particular.I also think that the violence is a little gratuitous. But against that is that there is not a single swear word, not a single glimpse of naked flesh; where there is plenty of opportunity to include that if he wanted to.Having said all that, it IS a good movie. I would always be prepared to hire out a Dean Koontz movie on the strength of his name alone. It's simply that here on IMDB I get to wax philosophical about it...

-628 Dean Koontz writes a superb story and part of his strength is that he develops his characters so well. Movies based on his books have not been as successful because film-makers often aim for horror and action at the expense of characterisation. I'm happy to say that "Sole Survivor" does not fall into this short-coming. The movie retains not only the drama, suspense and mystery of the book, but also the characterisations, especially in the first half of the movie. The acting is superb, particularly from Billy Zane and Rachel Victoria Roberts, who make their characters totally believable. The movies does lose some impact in the 2nd half as the character of Yates descends into a caricature of evil. The movie would have retained more credibility if he was portrayed as fanatic rather than lunatic. Nevertheless, the movie maintains its suspense to the end and, in my view, represents the best translation to screen of any Dean Koontz book I have seen to date. This is a movie well worth seeing.

ron.vliet The story of this film is ok and should guarantee a great film but it isn't. The film starts ok but basically there isn't enough material to fill the approx. 180 minutes. This results in scenes that go on and on and every bit of detailed is chewed ready for the viewer like they don't have any imagination themselves. Somewhere after 100 minutes of viewing time it's hard to keep fascinated by the film.