john-shannon-903-426510 While this TV movie is based on Phenomenon (starring John Travolta), and while a lot of the lines are the same, I did find the original movie quite sad and without hope. I think we need to see more hope in "TV movies" and "movies" in general. This was a very positive movie on every level. Like "a beautiful life" it touched on the connectedness of all things, and that our brains are hardly ever utilized to its full extent. Liked the spin on relationships - with the Autistic child "Jay", how George understood and could get through to him, when so many could not. Would have loved to have seen this become a TV series - its not too late for it to happen - with say someone like th SciFi channel (syfy), who pick up series like this when many other channels don't. (Surface was one such example). This movie went further than the original so to that extent its both a remake and a sequel.

dmwoodland Phenomenon II was a very enjoyable movie. It was clearly written to be a pilot; and it's regrettable that it only got that far. We haven't had a really intelligent protagonist to follow in a TV series since David Janssen was The Fugitive.You couldn't have a more likable lead than the one played in Phenomenon II by Christopher Shyer as George Malley. He was buoyant, engaging and thoughtful. The part seemed made for him.Claudette Mink was a wonderful choice to play Lace Pennamin. She was believable both as an actress, and also as someone who would actually attract George Malley. The attraction in the first Phenomenon movie was always a mystery, although it was certainly well-played by Kyra Sedgwick.The script moved along at a nice pace. It was really interesting how quickly it got through the basic story points and character definition, in order to improve on Phenomenon I by adding a formula for a future television series. It would make a good one too; most viewers are probably left wanting more.The only thing that detracted from Phenomenon II was the part written for Jill Clayburgh -- who played George Malley's mom. As written, it was utterly unbelievable. A loving mother would not have turned her son over to a brain surgeon like this -- nor would she have insisted he leave town. She would have defended him.The latter scene would have been better left out completely. Or it should have been written for another character...maybe the Doctor.Jill Clayburgh certainly did her best to play the part as written, but it wasn't believable.

telepathical I really enjoyed the first Phenomenon movie, John Travolta carried the part well enough to surpass the somewhat obvious Hollywoodisation and gave a truly heartfelt performance.This movie is nothing like that movie, yet it is exactly the same; and this is why. Phenomenon 2 is pretty much word for word, scene for scene, storyline for storyline as the original, but without any emotion. I don't know what the producers were thinking here but I bet they thought "Hmm, Phenomenon got a good review and net income, lets make another one exactly the same so we don't have to write a new story, the public will buy that right?" No they won't. Oh no no no. If I wanted to watch a rubbish version of Phenomenon I would of gone to a high school musical version of Phenomenon and even then I have the option to throw things on stage. Unfortunately, this movie stole from me approximately 90 minutes where I could of been doing something more constructive... like licking broken glass.

thrill_5150 I just saw this film this past weekend, and I can't for the life of me connect the storyline. My only realistic conclusion is that this was one of the possible scripts for the first movie that was being made to be true to the writers vision of the movie.The first film was very "Hollywoodized", with John Travolta, Forrest Whitaker and Robert Duvall.Just a thought.