Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

A different way of telling a story

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

This movie is exactly the reason that people cringe when someone makes a movie out of a book. It's not that it's different from the book -- THAT I could have accepted. What is unacceptable is the incompetence with which the writer producers handled the material. Typical lowbrow Hollywood treatment of a very good book series. I was unfortunate enough to have wasted several hours of my life on this and I feel a need to ask for them back. Hollywood Hack garbage at its worst. The casting, the styling, all very low budget. Thumbs down and a 1 out of 10. Not only was the dialogue written as if by a fourth grader from a foreign country, but the casting was hyper-stylized to the point that it distracted from the story. And speaking of story, where was it? It look as if the writers just pulled a page out of Joseph Cambell and xeroxed it into their template -- with one very obvious omission -- HEART. You can write all the formula you want, but if it's just copied from better writers, you will always end up with rubbish. I am so irritated with the awful treatment of the original material that I find it hard to bring to words.

I've read all the Fearless books that are available. I'm a big fan of the books, I've known about the wb's show "Fearless" for almost a year now. I finally saw the pilot this week. It was way better than I thought it was going to be, but it should be more like the books. I think that would make the show stronger. These are the changes I would make: -New York instead of L.A. like it is in the books. -Recast Rachael Leigh Cook, she's a good actress, but not as Gaia, Gaia should be Russian looking, blonde hair, blue eyes, at least 5'9", and not built petite like Rachael is. -Gaia needs to be 17 like she is in the books and in high school. -Has to have the characters, Ed, Sam, Ella, Heather, Loki, and her dad. Even Mary would be cool to have, though she doesn't last. So I think the show has potential without comparing it to the books. Gaia is a little too violent. I didn't care for the girl fight scene in the bathroom I thought that was too much, but I do think Rachael, Ian, Eric, and Bianca make a good young FBI team.

I've read most of the "Fearless" books. (I know what you're all thinking. Francine Pascal?) They were really good. It'll be good to see in the show if the creators can bridge the gap from Gaia being 17 in the books, and 21 in the show. I wonder if they will bring The characters "Ed Fargo" and "Sam Moon" back. It also would be interesting to see them bring in "Heather Gannis", who was Gaia's rival in high school. One other thing was that in the books, Gaia was a blond. Unless Rachel Leigh Cook is going to dye her hair, it's a major difference.I heard that the WB was planning on picking the series up for it's Fall lineup. I think that would be a good thing. I just hope that the TV series is as good as the books.

When i first saw the pilot i went in with an open mind. Having never read the books, I had no pre-conceived notion of what to expect.Starting off with a short introduction by Gaia Moore (Cook) about herself and her life. How she was perfect for her job because she experienced none of the side effects that come with fear (i.e. vision impairment, shakes etc.) Except she's been assigned to LA where she is partnered with two other teen extreme hotties (Lawson and Balfour.) Gaia does not inform her partners of her "condition" and they are more than a little freaked when Gaia goes under cover to bring down a crime lord. Throw in Ian Somerhalder for sexual tension and you complete the Bruckheimer formula.There was obvious money thrown into the pilot. Filmed in the trademark grainy green hues that CSI and Without a Trace made famous, and backed by an all star teen dream cast. But it just doesn't work. Everything seems 10x what it should be. The script puts in the extra effort to make sure that the show still has the feeling element, even though the one emotion drama and action relies on (fear), is not even experienced by the main character. This "push" ends up cranking everything else into overdrive and soon you are left with the feeling that you are reading a fifteen-year-olds diary/journal. That's if the fifteen-year-old were narrating the whole story from there perspective. Too much is put into looking cool and kicking butt than actual plot and character development, all other emotions seem over the top and silly. This formula works for the movies because it's a one shot deal, but a television series needs more structure. Which fearless lacks.The pilot is obviously marketed towards teenagers. Perhaps Bruckheimer decided that it was time to dominate a new age group, having already seized control of the adult 18-45 bracket. Rumors are floating around that the WB will be picking this up for fall 2004. Here's hoping it has a better fate that "Tarzan."