Supernova

Rating:
Summary: Super nothing
Review: I love science fiction movies, but it's obvious that those set in outer space have been in a rut for some time. Just as it has been long time since man last walked on the moon, it has been over thirty years since Stanley Kubrick set the standard for the look and feel of space travel in 2001: A Space Odyssey. In 1977, George Lucas defined the universe as one giant, albeit glamorous, battlefield in Star Wars. Two years later James Cameron showed us what utter horror awaited the unwary intergalactic traveler in Alien. Since then, most space epics have been variations on the themes of these three great movies. It's almost as though the earlier films created some sort of history that every thing since must be based on. Supernova is a stew made from parts of all the above movies, and the results are not very appetizing.

A medical emergency space craft is traveling for unknown reasons in what appears to be the wrong side of the tracks, galactically speaking. The small crew is about equally divided between men and women, but since they can't get within ten feet of each other without the idea of sex entering the picture, mankind does not appear to have evolved much. Soon comes the mysterious distress signal, a mandatory element of this type of movie. It turns out to be from a man stranded on a defunct mining colony. He is Karl Larson [Peter Facinelli], the very same man chief medical officer Karla Evers [Angela Basset] had an unhappy affair with years ago. [Gee, it's a small universe!] When he arrives, however, the crew discovers he may or may not be the same man because he is twenty or so years younger. He has smuggled aboard the prerequisite Thing From Another World, this glowing, translucent object, which looks suspiciously like a giant lava lamp. It doesn't take long for crew members to start disappearing right on cue, just as we expect them to. After an hour and a half, the movie ends with more of a whimper than a bang.

There are some good CGI effects in Supernova. The jump to light speed is especially impressive. I also liked the way the space craft creaked and gently rocked just like a ship at sea. The ship's computer, which has developed some its [her?] own emotions, is amusing.

I'm afraid, however, that this is a case of the bad way outweighing the good. In 2001: A Space Odyssey, you had an extraordinary vision. Alien and Star Wars did not, but they had whopping good stories to tell. Supernova has very little to tell, and all of that has been told much better a dozen times before. There are so many plot holes that the movie almost becomes its own black hole drama-wise. There is no attempt at character development. That computer has by far the best personality. The entire cast is wasted, which renders comments on their performances useless. For instance, the only thing of note about James Spader is that he has worked out a whole lot since his last film. Now approaching middle age, he has decided it's time to become totally buff. I call this the Nicholas Cage Syndrome.

Rating:
Summary: Oh my. Stinky.
Review: This movie was bad. Very bad.

It's nothing but a contrived, silly plot made up to wrap around lots of T&A, so that it looks as though it's about more then just an excuse to show lots of T&A.

It plays like a _bad_ late-night Showtime flick, if you catch my drift.

The formula has been done many, many, many times before, and so much better (check out _Alien_, perhaps THE best sci-fi deep-space-alien-terror movie ever made. Or to a lesser extent _Sphere_ or _Event Horizon_).

I got this for $...out of Wal-Mart's clearence bin, and I regret every penny. I DO NOT reccomend this movie to anyone.

Rating:
Summary: A Star Is Dead: Showcase of How to Tinker at the Film
Review: Ulitimately, "Supernova" will be remembered in the history of movies as the first film which credits its director as Thomas Lee, formerly Alan Smithee, pseudonynm used when its directo(s) do not want to put their names on the product. And the decision of using another name will be understandable if you watch this badly constructed film. (But I watched twice, really. It draws some people in a strange way, like a badly edited old film on midnight TV.)

The story is about a medical rescue ship in outer space, which got an emergency call from a surviver (so he claims). Of course, he gets on board, to cause more casulaties among the crew. Now, I don't complain the familiar plot; "Alien" comes to our mind first, but it also had forerunners (How about "Forbidden Planet"?) The problem is, some (or many, you say) scenes have no function in the story. In other words, you can extract a certain scene (for example, two of th ship crew hugging naked each other, or one stuff playing chess with the computer), and put it somewhere else in the movie. Usually, you cannot do it because such change destroys the smooth development of the story. In "Supernova," however, nothing changes. This means no drift of the story is created to push the whole movie ahead. Consequently, we see many so-so scenes, but we see no horror, no suspense, no thrill, or even no laugh generated during the course.

Well, I know its troubled production history, and the result of the film clearly betrays the tinkering of the people involved. Probably, beside the film's pretty impressive production designs and its CGI images, the traces of editing or re-editing may interest movie fans most. For instance, it is implied that James Spaders's character had some experience of certain kind of drug in his past, but this fact diappears suddenly from us as the film goes on; the spaceship's computer seems confused, too, because at one scene, it (she?) throws one of the characters out of the ship easily, but at another it stubbornly refuses to open the hatch to release the air (and Peter Fascinelli); or, we see the rather ambiguous ending of the film, which seems quite pointless after all. These inconsistency remains in our mind while watching the film, to eventually kill our interest in it. Now I want to know -- What WAS the original script? Or was there anything like that at all?

As the use of "Alan Smithee" (in this case, "Thomas Lee") requires the director(s) not to speak ill of the film they made, we will not hear the inside story of the film, or the feelings about the product from the mouth of Mr. Hill, Sholder, or Coppola. But you can guess the truth, and your guess is as good as mine. My remaining interest is, who is gonna be the next Thomas Lee?

Rating:
Summary: A copycat science fiction "thriller."
Review: The perplexing question on every screenwriter's mind concerns what it takes to get their script made into a major film. If they've had the pleasure (if one dares to consider it such) of watching "Supernova," they will find their answer. Treading on familiar ground in the sci-fi genre, the film is a glossy yet undetermined and ultimately tedious experience, one that registers little intensity or plot involvement.

It's story is a spiced-up version of any sci-fi film you've ever seen, only duller. It begins with an obligatory catastrophe in which a call for help sends the medical ship Nightingale into a hyper-space dimension jump. As if the procedure itself were not hokey enough, the crew of the ship must strip completely naked before the jump. When they reach their intended target, they find that they are dangerously low on resources and their captain has perished.

Things get even more harried for the film once Troy, the lone survivor of a mining expedition, boards the ship. Troy bears a resemblance to someone from Dr. Evers' past, and she, along with now-captain Nick Vanzant, has reservations about keeping him aboard. Even more perplexing is the artifact he has in tow, a mysterious, crystalline structure that glows and, apparently, makes people stronger and younger when touched.

"Supernova" has one main problem that causes many others: it wants to be fresh. Let's forget, for a moment, that we're in a copycat's nightmare, from such scenes as the hyper-jump, a direct link to that of "Star Wars" minus the nudity, or that instead of a nicely-paced original movie, what we are left with is a recycling of the once-reliable race-against-time story. What it boils down to in the end is that attempts at trying revitalize old tactics are successful at times, but must have a certain degree of interest to generate; this film has none.

It's an actor's worst nightmare, to say the least, though the cheesy lines and insipid action are handled with an earnestness that should earn each cast member an Oscar for Tolerance of Insolence. James Spader is witty and stern, a perfect compliment to Angela Bassett's identical attributes; not only that, but the two actually have some chemistry, if offbeat. The rest of the cast goes along with the story, though without much conviction or enthusiasm. The computer is the best character, the only one, aside from Spader and Bassett, who develops any real emotion.

It may surprise some that "Supernova" has two unaccredited directors to its name: Walter Hill, and Francis Ford Coppola, who disowned the film. Can you blame them? What's going on in this mish-mash is anyone's guess, and by the film's drawn-out conclusion, you'll find yourself wondering who makes the final decisions about which films are worth production.

Rating:
Summary: A monkey movie without the magic banana
Review: At the end of this movie the two heroes leap into a warp-drive module and their DNA fuse in such a way that their eyes change colour.... Sound strange ? Well incredibly this is actually the most interesting thing that happens in the entire movie. The special effects are very ordinary and concept is very similar to Alien, without the suspense or a remotely believable story-line. Prehaps this movie was made in a far-off galaxy by a species that has a markably inferior ability to make movies......

Rating:
Summary: Cliched and without a stellar cast, but it's NOT that bad
Review: It looks like very few people like "Supernova." A spaceship that is carrying a crew of people that are involved in the medical field, picks up a mysterious drifter named Karl (Peter Facinelli). Karl is a mystery by himself, but he brought along an equally mysterious space artifact. Will Karl and this strange object prove to be a help to the medical crew, or is danger closer to being the word? I don't see where "Supernova" is that bad of a movie to be honest. Sure, it's bigtime cliched and it doesn't have a spectacular cast or acting (except by Angela Bassett), but nonetheless, it's an interesting movie with good special effects. For awhile at the beginning, it's a little slow paced and not that exciting, but once a certain enemy starts rampaging, "Supernova" gets a lot more interesting. If you like sci-fi movies in the least sense, I recommend at least watching "Supernova." Even though it's not the most original film ever made, it's not that bad.

Rating:
Summary: Despite other hateful reviews, I say it's good sci-fi
Review: Half-sleep when making my last review, I decided to write another one. Everyone seems to be giving SuperNova a bad wrap, and I think they're wrong. Everyone makes comments about the "bad lightning" when in fact, I think it added to the mysterious atmosphere. I liked the plot, although somewhat predictable. Being a sci-fi star of this generation, I think SuperNova is one of the good sci-fi movies, and after I saw it, I wanted to see another sci-fi movie. I loved the cast, and the characters were believeable, although I think there should have been more about them revealed. Maybe the not-so-nice critique's come from people who don't get the movie, or just can't grasp on the concept althogether. Here's my advice to you. Watch it again. The movie wasn't "Matrix" great, but it sure as heck wasn't rotten bad. I'm sticking with the 4 stars, because I think it deserves it.

Rating:
Summary: fAILURE ALL THE WAY..
Review: When I heard Spader was in it, I tought: Well, at least heÂ's coming back !! let me check it out! What a deception.. This is a real bad science-fiction movie, one that hurts the image of this genre of movie, a real shame!

Rating:
Summary: Horrible sci-fi movie
Review: "Supernova" is, to say the least, horrible, lacking in unpredictable characters (save for Facinelli) and many more stars in this '99 sci-fi original.

The plot is equivalent to that of a SCI FI Original movie/TV show "Farscape" and "Lexx," to name a couple. The movie has a sort of eerie feeling, like a horror movie, lacking in bright lights, and the actors do reasonably good performances, but it just seems forced and dull. That's the only reasons I gave the second star.

Here's the dull and predictable plot: a medical ship rescues an enigmatic miner (Peter Facinelli) and they find a mystical alien artifact, having found it to be linked to the miner, resulting in terrific special effects--no genuine surprises which is the catch. Frankly, I'm surprised this movie didn't win a Razzie for the worst sci-fi movie of 2000.

On average, I'd recommend you to stay away from this film, unless you REALLY have the hots for Peter Facinelli, Robin Tunney, James Spader, and Angela Bassett (they all do nude scenes in this movie) or for the undemanding sci-fi watcher or for the unsuspecting SHOWTIME watcher who's looking for a good way to kill an hour and a half.

Rated PG-13 for nudity and violence.

Rating:
Summary: Entertaining formula passes time well
Review: What do you want? Everything can not be new or innovative and everyone can not be a superstar. The formula has always worked before. You pick up something in space and it eats your lunch. I did not see any cardboard looking props and the actors do not out act the characters.

Look how far the actors have come. Robin Tunney has grown up and looks cuter than in "The Craft" ASIN: B00004W4UD (see my review December 22, 2000.) Lou Diamond Philips can make more faces (expanded expressions) than he did in "Bats" ASIN: B00003L9CQ (see my review August 25, 2000.)

This movie has all the elements necessary for today's formula space "Who's next to get it?" film. You truly have several chances to say stay in the car (oops ship).