Rating: 
Summary: THIS IS RATED G BUT IT HAS MORE NUDITY THEN AMERICAN PIE
Review: THIS MOVIE IS RATED G BUT HAS MORE NUDITY THEN AMERICAN PIE. BIG DEAL AMERICAN PIE HAS CUSSING BECIDES THAT AMERICAN PIE HAS LESS NUSITY TEN THIS. IF THIS IS RATED G THEN AMERICAN PIE SHOULD BE RATED EITHER PG OR PG-13
Rating: 
Summary: Catch it.
Review: Superlative science fiction from director Robert Wise and writer Michael Crichton. It doesn't hurt that Albert Whitlock, whose groundbreaking tech work on *The Birds* set new visual standards, supervised the special effects. Even less painful is the technical support the movie received from no less than Cal Tech and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. For those unhappy with the technology's "dated" look, the computers and robotics were cutting edge for 1970, and more importantly, were REAL. (And remember, F/X nuts: the story is NOT set in the future; it's supposed to take place in 1970.) In *The Andromeda Strain*, the hardware's sturdy reality contributes to the suspense generated by the rather scary plot. A satellite sent to collect any possible microscopic life forms does just that, returning to Earth via a tiny isolated burg in the New Mexico desert. But the "life" the satellite has retrieved turns out to be more than anyone, except maybe some nutty, high-placed Cold Warriors, bargained for. The organism wipes out the town, turning the blood of its victims into a granulated dust that trickles out when their skin is cut by space-suited investigators. What follows is a complicated operation involving 3 top scientists and 1 M.D. who try to identify and neutralize the microscopic menace. Their lab, called Wildfire, is located in southern Nevada thousands of feet under an isolated agricultural building in the middle of the desert. (It's very Area 51-ish.) The laboratory set has to be one of the most complicated ever built in Hollywood. It's as if a top military insider drew up the blueprints. And the science is probably impeccable. This is all the result of director Wise wanting to GET IT RIGHT even more than wanting to merely entertain. This goes for his characters and casting, too: Wise casts character-actors as the scientists, eschewing glamor for believability. Someone called Kate Reid, playing the middle-age, overweight, grouchy epileptic, steals the show, such as it is. The grand result of all the incessant attention to detail is that *The Andromeda Strain* will hold up forever as one of the greatest -- or should that be one of the ONLY? -- hard-science fiction movies ever made. It's a real science geek's dream: those who think "sci-fi" is another term for "light sabers" are encouraged to look elsewhere. [The DVD, by the dreaded Image Entertainment, looks OK. The print hasn't been restored, but at least it's in the correct aspect ratio. The product is copyrighted 1997 -- therefore, zero extras. Maybe with future reissues Universal will scare up some commentary or a Making-Of with surviving members of the cast & crew. A Making-Of would be fascinating, in regards to this movie.]
Rating:
Summary: Big Disappointment!!!!
Review: Don't expect a tongue in cheek flick when you sit to watch this movie. You see, no matter how good the book was, the movie doesn't get to you as it well should. Everyone is boring, the visual quality is apalling, and when something marvellous happens you just say ...huh?
Anyway, if you want to hurt your back for an hour and a half I won't stop you, 'cause I can't. But I warn you: don't think it will fulfill your expectations...at all.
Rating:
Summary: Science Fiction That Borders Very Close To Science Fact
Review: Thanks to an enormously realistic story, superb production design, and good special effects, THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN doesn't seem or feel dated, even though it was released in 1971. Michael Crichton's first novel formed the basis of this long but engrossing science fiction drama whose plot borders on Fact.The plot involves an experimental satellite that crashes back to Earth near Piedmont, a small New Mexico desert town. It is carrying with it a deadly organism from space; and it is that organism that wipes out all but two of the town's sixty-eight inhabitants. It is up to four scientists (Arthur Hill, Kate Reid, James Olson, David Wayne) to isolate the organism in a vast underground lab in the Nevada desert known as Wildfire. The lab has everything that could conceivably be needed for just such a biological emergency, including a nuclear detonation device that will go off should the facility become contaminated. But the more the four scientists learn about this organism, named Andromeda, the more frightened they get. Not only does it mutate, but it turns into an organism that can transfer matter into energy and vice versa. This means that the nuclear device meant to kill it will instead cause it to grow into mutations so vast that Andromeda can never be gotten rid of. That potential fear becomes almost a fact when the place does become contaminated. Olson is given the task to stop self-destruction and he does...with eight seconds to spare! Although it is very detailed and long, at 130 minutes, THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN is still a brilliant film, superbly directed by Robert Wise, whose 1951 film THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL remains one of the high watermarks of science fiction. For the quartet of scientists, he chose actors who could act, and who were not necessarily stars so to speak. This results in a realism that is sometimes hard to come by in other sci-fi movies. There is a significant amount of technical jargon and some slightly off-center humor in Nelson Gidding's adaptation of the Crichton novel, but it doesn't really slow the film down. The final race to stop self-destruction is hugely suspenseful. The visual effects work by Douglas Trumbull (2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY), James Shourt, and Albert Whitlock (THE BIRDS), remains strikingly good in light of all the computer-generated special effects to have come along in recent years. When combined together, THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN still packs a considerable punch, and is well worth seeing.
Rating:
Summary: A Real Science Fiction Flick
Review: This movie remains one of my all time favorite sci-fi flicks. Why? Simple, it's scientifically accurate. Most of the films described as "sci-fi" are light on the "science" and heavy on the "fiction". They seem to almost always rely on some scientific breakthrough to conveniently sidestep those pesky laws of physics that get in the way of a good story. Not so with "Andromeda Strain". It features a believable plot, real laboratory instruments (being used correctly...wonder of Hollywood wonders) and scientists who, while dedicated, are also flawed in one way or the other making them human and believable. This is one of only a handful of films that I regard as truly qualified to wear the label "science fiction".
Rating:
Summary: Space cooties
Review: This may sound strange but "Andromeda Strain" is dated (or a period piece) and the premise would not be unique today. Today the bug would have to eat your cell phone. This movie is a classic and anyone replacing the original characters would always be compared to the original. Still It is fun to watch and say "Don't do that!!!"
Rating:
Summary: great classic SF!
Review: Based on the novel, the movie is well done. While few SF films are as good as the novel, this is better than most. A good film (...).
Rating:
Summary: This movie is not "out of date"
Review: I've noticed one of the most often cited complaints from reviewers is that this movie looks "dated" - that the cars, computers, or clothing look "out of date" This is like saying that any World War II flick looks "out of date" simply because the airplanes have propellors instead of jet engines. Big, giant CLUE to you people: this movie's storyline is MEANT to take place in the 70's!!! (or late 60's). The Cold War took place then. Early satellite and bio-weapons research took place then. Would you say a Civil War era movie looks dated cuz they use single-shot rifles with bayonnets???? NO!!! Similarly, this movie is NOT dated simply because of it's 60's/70's era computers..... the movie is SUPPOSED to take place during that time!!!! This is a tale of a cover-up involving an alien microscopic lifeform discovered during the 60's/70's and only barely contained at that time and not known since. That said, this is one of the most clearly written and well thought out storylines in any scifi movie ever! Period. I, too, as previous nay-sayers have claimed, am a student of virology, genetics, evolution, and I disagree with those who say this movie has so many holes. Crichton himself is a certified M.D. and definitely knows what he is talking about, even if it is theoretically cutting-edge. Besides, how can a student of terrestrial medicine pre-supposed knowledge of xenobiological functions; and even without that caveat, the biology presented in this movie is rather orthodox, especially when compared to such nonsense as is presented in modern pop-scifi (like the endless half alien, half human hybrids in the "trek" franchises) Yes, for the ultra layman, some of the biology points may be hard to follow; sure there is little to no action; yes there are no "big" stars; and finally, YES, the computers and equipment look old compared to what we have now - simply because that's how they looked in the 60's and 70's and that is precisely when this story takes place. In fact, that is one of the reasons the story is so compelling - that us lowly yet brainy humans - with comparatively primitive research equipment - can still elucidate a logical and workable response to such an insidious threat. In fact, I see many unforseen parallels to modern bio-threats which we are now facing: STD's, bio-terrorism weapons, cancer, new/unresearched viral/bacterial vectors. And just think, these are all earth based - that is, based on carbon/ribonucleic chemistries. What if a crystalline/silicate lifeform which we mistook for simple meteor debris showed up? One which directly fed on simple electromagnetic or high-energy nuclear/radioactive emanations not by metabolizing the energy into chemically useful reactions (i.e. photosynthesis, which is amazing enough) but by directly harnessing the energy into molecular catalyzation; changing less useful molecular/enzymatic configurations into more useful ones (the way our standard "metabolism" does). what would we do? This movie attempts to answer what would have happened in the 70's if such an event occurred - or more accurately what it does is to explain what REALLY DID happen when our first 'scoop' satellites returned with actual E.T. microbe samples. This "actual" occurrence has been covered up according to the movie. Or was it just a movie? That's the "X-files"-like charm of this flick. I recommend it highly unless you have a low tolerance for the "science" in science-fiction.
Rating:
Summary: Fantastic. A rare hard-science movie with continuity.
Review: I am disappointed that so many think the movie looks "dated". The movie is not trying to be ambiguous about it's time setting. It TAKES PLACE in the 70's during the cold war. The computers and technology LOOKED that way in the 70's. It's not TRYING to be a 90's or 21st century story! Would you rather the technology look like Star Trek the original series or Forbidden Planet? Now THOSE look dated in any time setting. Would you prefer the computers look like 1990's technology? That wouldn't fit the storyline, which is tailored around the tech of the time (for instance, the epilepsy scene where the doctor had to re-perform her culture comparisons - this scene would be moot in a modern automated lab where human intervention and control is kept to a minimum). "Strain" is about a secret program in the 70's and a probe launched and recovered and studied in the 70's and a barely contained epidemic that took place in the 70's. I can't say it enough. Book translation accuracy aside, it is an excellent and consistent hard scifi movie. I showed it to my layperson roommates and they loved it (i am a bit of a science head myself).
Rating: 
Summary: OK Movie
Review: This movie is okay, it isnt the best adaptation of the book but it does the job okay. Unless you really want to see or own this book, i recommend renting it and definetly reading the book before you see the movie because then you wont understand certain asprects ot the movie.
|
