Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

jelleoelle This is a movie where you constantly will be commenting about how stupid and unrealistic one scene after another is. It could have been a good movie, but it just gets too enoying, because you keep seing a computer doing the most stupid things, that no computer would, and people do things that doesn't make sence. They seem to have programmed the computer to kill intruders and vandalists!!! Watch it with friends so you can have a laugh at it.

virek213 Even given the fact that it's a made-for-TV affair, the execution, the screenplay, and the acting of the 1993 Fox-TV movie THE TOWER are inscrutably inane. The premise is certainly not the problem; the idea of a computer in charge of security in an L.A. high-rise going after its occupants is, in fact, dead-on perfect.The problem is, however, that even the best stories, if executed either poorly or in a mediocre fashion (the latter in this case), lose their suspenseful effectiveness. Paul Reiser, of TV's "Mad About You", is quite the obnoxious one as a tenant of the building whose smart mouth and list of security violations makes him a target for CAS, the building's security computer (voice of Dee Dee Wilkinson). What we have then is a film whose malevolent computer is basically a more sinister female counterpart to HAL from Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and a setting clearly inspired by THE TOWERING INFERNO and DIE HARD, but whose execution couldn't hope to compete with those masterpieces unless a talent like Steven Spielberg was in the director's seat, and Michael Crichton or Arthur C. Clarke wrote the dialogue. Despite all this, I give THE TOWER a rating of '6' for the premise, as well as some pretty nifty special effects.

G-Man-25 A cheap, dumb, derivative and mostly unintentionally funny hybrid of sci-fi and disaster flicks that nonetheless manages to entertain, IF you're not too demanding. Would be a prime candidate for a feature on "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" if that show was still on the air. The technology and effects in the movie are already hilariously out of date, like some bad TV-movie from the 1970s. Some prime heckle-worthy dialogue and situations abound. All in all, amateurish fun for everyone!

palm21 This movie shows Paul Reiser in one of his worst roles ever. He usually plays in comedy movies and after this attempted thriller should definately never consider doing one ever again. The movie is a simple ripp-off from all the other "Man vs. Computer" movies we have seen in the last years("The Terminator" springs to mind). I got the feeling that the people who wrote and produced this movie just decided that they wanted to make some money and hoped they could join the hype, thereby making those big bucks... Unfortunately this meagre attempt resulted in a movie which seems to be no more than just a loose bundle of scenes joined together in no particular order. This is probably because of the lousy script and the way the camera is used(which must have seemed creepy to the makers, but looks ridiculous to me). The cheap love story could be summerised in 1 line: Man finds the love of his life in fight against machine. His 'girlfriend'(Susan Norman) acts annoyingly bad and spoils most of the scenes. But all this set aside the real problem is this: This is supposed to be a thriller and therefore should be exciting. The viewer should be starteld and feel connected to the main character in his fight against his enemy. Too bad none of the afore mentioned happened to me... Conclusion: TV rubbish of absolutely no interest to any one.