What makes it different from others?

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Cyberflic is terrible. There is no 2 ways about it. As much as we love seeing Terence Hill in just about anything. This one was majorly stinky. I'm not sure who the ghost theme was supposed to appeal to. It just doesn't work. Who wants to see Terence as a ghost?? All of the sappy family stuff does not a good movie make. A little bit goes a long way in the sappy family department. And finding him still alive after being a ghost during the whole movie was beyond bad. I think someone has already mentioned how much better the music in these movies was in the 70's.As a huge fan and collector of everything Terence Hill and Bud Spencer, I will follow them anywhere. But I blame their worst efforts on filming in Florida (comfortible surroundings) and Bruno Corbucci. Don't get me wrong, Bruno did write a couple of classic movies early on. But he was also responsible for most of their most terrible efforts on screen. If one looks through the history of Terence Hill and/or Bud Spencer, again and again, you will find Bruno Corbucci behind the terrible movies. And as for Florida, the whole Miami Vice thing must have influenced foreign filmmakers much more than in the states. Because they kept copying that style over and over. And it was almost never a good idea. Even when they had Philip Michael Thomas, still bad, bad, bad. It seems like their films were much more fun in uncomfortable surroundings. Filming in modern day America was not good to our boys. USA must have seemed exotic to Europeans,.. or just more "Hollywood". Afterall, they are competing with Hollywood product worldwide. As for Terence and Bud, there was a tendency to be for them to want to play good guys/upstanding do-gooders. This made their characters and their movies more uninteresting. Their best characters, Trinity, Bambino, Nobody,...were not really good guys. They were basically self-interested bad guys. The creeping "nice-ness" in their movies was the death of fun. I appreciate that Terence wants to make family oriented fare. But no sex, no violence, nothing frightening for children equals nothing interesting. Who wants to see a nice guy doing nothing very interesting? It doesn't work.

The 70's really were the high-point for Terence Hill (as they were for Bud Spencer, who at least made some decent films without Hill I think) and this film is really his more than his downfall. This film was his ruin, because it is simply unbearable and after making such a bad movie he was rightly banned from making films. In the beginning there are a few good one-liners and good action, but towards the end of the film, the story gets so ridiculous that you loose interest and just want to turn it off. I can't believe they actually made this film and what's even worse, I spend time watching it. If you like S&M I can recommend this to you, otherwise stay as far away from this mess as you possibly can. 1 out of 10

The Terence Hill movies of the 1970's were fun. This movie was a typical Terence Hill, Bud Spencer movie of that era with just a few things missing. 1: Bud Spencer - replaced by Marvin Hagler, 2: Spaghetti western - replaced by spaghetti Miami vice, 3: Clever humor - replaced by poorly given and written dialogue, ridiculous situations, unfunny attempts at doing or saying something funny. I had trouble sitting through this movie to the end. I wish I had left poor old Terence back in the 70's.