Is Replicant Worth Watching?
Answer: Maybe not, Replicant is likely a skip if you enjoy Action movies.
It features a runtime of 100 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to general audiences.

Verdict:Replicant is a confirmed FLOP based on our analysis of audience ratings and box office momentum.
With a rating of 5.8/10, it has delivered a mixed experience for fans of the Action, Science Fiction, Thriller genre.
Answer: Maybe not, Replicant is likely a skip if you enjoy Action movies.
It features a runtime of 100 minutes and offers a standard storyline that appeals to general audiences.
Last updated: January 18, 2026
Released in the dynamic cinematic landscape of 2001, Replicant emerges as a significant entry in the Action, Science Fiction, Thriller domain. The narrative core of the film focuses on a sophisticated exploration of Scientists create a genetic clone of a serial killer in order to help catch the killer, teaming up with two cops. Unlike standard genre fare, Replicant attempts to deconstruct traditional tropes, offering a conventional take on its central themes.
The success of any Action is often anchored by its ensemble, and Replicant features a noteworthy lineup led by Jean-Claude Van Damme . Supported by the likes of Michael Rooker and Ian Robison , the performances bring a palpable realism to the scripted words.
Performance Analysis: While the cast delivers competent and professional performances, they are occasionally hampered by a script that leans into familiar archetypes.
In summary, our editorial assessment of Replicant (2001) is mixed. With an audience rating of 5.8/10, it stands as a highly recommended experience for genre enthusiasts.
Quick Plot Summary: Replicant is a Action, Science Fiction, Thriller film that delivers high-octane sequences and adrenaline-pumping confrontations that keep viewers on the edge of their seats. This summary provides a scannable look at the movie's central conflict and narrative structure.
The narrative structure follows a classic action blueprint: establish the protagonist's world, introduce a formidable antagonist, and escalate the stakes through increasingly intense confrontations. Scientists create a genetic clone of a serial killer in order to help catch the killer, teaming up with two cops. The film balances spectacular set pieces with character moments, ensuring the action serves the story rather than overwhelming it.
Ending Breakdown: Replicant attempts to tie together its various plot elements. The finale presents its approach to action resolution.
The final reveal recontextualizes earlier scenes, offering viewers material for post-viewing discussion.
The final moments of Replicant reflect the filmmakers' creative choices, offering an ending that aligns with the film's tone and style.
Consider Watching If:
| Metric / Region | Collection (Approx) |
|---|---|
| Production Budget | $17.0M |
| Worldwide Gross | $894.8K |
| Trade Verdict | FINANCIAL DISAPPOINTMENT |
The estimated production budget for Replicant is $17.0M. This figure covers principal photography, talent acquisitions, and visual effects. When accounting for global marketing and distribution, the break-even point is typically 2x the base production cost.







Starz Apple TV Channel
Amazon Video
Apple TV
Google Play Movies
YouTube
Fandango At Home
Amazon Video
Apple TV
Google Play Movies
YouTube
Fandango At HomeAnalyzing the audience sentiment, IMDb rating of 5.8/10, and global collection metrics, Replicant stands as a challenging project for the creators. It remains an essential piece of the 2001 cinematic year.
Replicant has received mixed reviews with a 5.8/10 rating, making it a moderate success with the audience.
Replicant is a mixed bag. It might be worth watching if you're a fan of Action, Science Fiction, Thriller movies, but read reviews first.
Replicant is currently available for streaming on Starz Apple TV Channel. You can also check for it on platforms like Starz Apple TV Channel depending on your region.
Double Trouble for Van Damme again! Yet another Jean-Claude Van Damme film that sees him tasked with playing two characters. In spite of its shaky reputation this isn’t half bad, it delivers what most Van Damme fans expect, namely bonkers fights and shifty science. Plot has Van Damme as a fire obsessed serial killer who is always one step ahead of the police. Enter science as a chance to clone the killer arises and this sets in motion the wheels of the Van Damme clone trying to come to terms with his alien world as he, and world weary police officer Jake Riley (Michael Rooker), set about capturing the unhinged mad man. It’s of course daft but it’s a whole bunch of fun, and with the strong presence of Rooker supplemented by two very interesting performances by Van Damme, pic is in good hands. The fight scenes are smoothly choreographed and exciting, with director Ringo Lam clearly aware of what makes a Van Damme movie work. It’s not prime Van Damme, but it’s above average and well worth checking out for those so inclined. 6/10
Jean-Claude Van Damme does the Italian neorealists one better; not only was he born to play himself, but also his twin — here, however, he mixes it up a bit, playing his clone instead. JCVD is Edward 'The Torch' Garrotte, a serial killer who likes to burn the corpses of the women he murders (why they gave him that last name but don’t have him use an actual garrotte, I haven’t the foggiest), whom Detective Jake Riley (Michael Rooker) has unsuccessfully pursued for the past three years — up to and including his last day on the force before retiring to apparently take up boat repairing. It turns out to be a 10 Minute Retirement; a secret government agency has cloned Garrotte from DNA found at a crime scene, and needs Jake's help to babysit the clone while he tracks down the killer — except they don’t call it a clone, but a "replicant". The difference between one and the other is never satisfactorily explained, but as far as I can tell, it takes at least a week for a replicant to be up and about ("God created man in six days, we took longer;" actually, God created man on the sixth day, not in six days. No wonder it took your ignorant asses longer). Additionally, while a clone has to grow and mature, a replicant comes out fully formed (complete, if my eyes don’t deceive me, with a navel), just like Pallas Athena from Zeus’ forehead — but then this is business as usual for clones in the movies, so I don't understand why this one feels the need to make a point out of its not being a clone. Unless, of course, director Ringo Lam deliberately wants us to think of Blade Runner (it's never a good idea to remind the audience that they could be watching a much better film; only instead of seeing "attack ships blazing from Orion's shoulder" and "C-beams glowing in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate,” JCVD eats dog food and falls in love with a whore. What’s certain is that the Replicant has the same muscular build as Garrotte; now, since a physique like JCVD's usually requires spending a lot in a gym — and time and a gym are two things that the Replicant lacks — I have no choice but to assume that Garrotte was born, like the baby in Meet the Spartans, with built-in muscles, a characteristic that his clone inherited (along with the uncontrollable desire to do splits). How do its creators intend for the Replicant to find Garrotte? “Well, we've augmented his telepathic ability by re-sequencing his genetic code from the genome. It may be our first, but genetic memory has been scientifically proven" — as has, I guess, telepathy, which is not the same thing; genetic memory would allow an individual to 'remember' something that they never learned (music, math), but the Replicator can recall specific actions performed by Garrotte. Anyway, the idea is for the Replicant to experience some sort of Proustian Madeleine moment, and it's Jake's job — who presumably knows Garotte as well as Steve Carell knows Proust in Little Miss Sunshine — to jog his memory. The rest is a disastrous hybrid of 48 Hrs. and Rain Man — the Replicant is basically a kid trapped in the body of a Belgian karate fighter (although come to think of it, so is the real JCVD) — that is neither good science fiction (the science, such as it is, being rather nebulous) nor good chopsocky (a character fighting himself invariably results in awkwardly choreographed action sequences). Then again, this movie was doomed they cast Michael 'Henry Lee Lucas' Rooker as the detective as opposed to the serial killer.
This analysis is compiled by our editorial experts using multi-source verification and audience sentiment data for maximum accuracy.


