Rating: 
Summary: Superb meticulous thriller
Review: Many factors contributed to my enjoyment of this film: great actors, dry humour, political intrigue, split-screen cinematography, ticker-tape updates, cold-war style security procedures, electronic music score, the underground laboratory. The laboratory itself is a marvel. Although we know it must be a film set, the equipment looks as though it could actually do the job. The attention to detail during the decontamination sequences, and the subsequent scientific investigation of the alien organism are extremely absorbing.
Rating:
Summary: Four scientists race against time to stop a "fire"
Review: An American space probe brings back an alien virus that wipes out the small town of Piedmont, New Mexico, except for a crying people and a crotchety old drunk. It is up to a quartet of scientist played by Arthur Hill, David Wayne, Kate Reid and James Olson to solve the secret of "The Andromeda Strain" before it wipes out all life on Earth. Based on the novel by Michael Crichton and directed by Robert Wise, this 1971 film creates a suspenseful thriller although all we are talking about here are four scientists working in an underground lab. As soon as the Military Police show up for Dr. Jeremy Stone (Hill) and tell him, "There's a fire, sir," I am hooked. Even if you do not know a lot about science, you will still get caught up in solving the mystery. Think of this as what your parents watched when we did not have anything like "CSI."
Rating:
Summary: Andromeda Strained
Review: This is still a very good movie after all these years. Sure the equipment and clothing shows its age but what do you think Jurassic Park will look like in 20 years. Tell me the clothing, vehicles, and the computers won't look dated. Michael Crichton is just simply a top notch writer. The Andromeda Strain is a good example. Set aside the dated bias, I sure do when I watch King Kong. Then sit down with some soda and popcorn and enjoy a good SciFi mystery that would have certainly kept Mulder and Scully busy.
Rating:
Summary: Crichton's "Strain" Makes A Good Techno-Thriller
Review: It is more difficult than one would think to take a good book and make it into a good movie. Consider, though, the problems involved in taking a book, which can be any length and can go into great detail, and squeezing it into the limited format of a movie. True, having a visual medium allows for the elimination of a lot of verbal description, but the story still must be condensed into a limited number of scenes and into a limited amount of time. Happily, "The Andromeda Strain" is an example of an excellent book that has been made into a very good movie.The only problems here are minor ones. Like the book, the movie gives you a lot of technical detail. This can be fascinating, especially if you're interested in technical stuff, but it can also get a little dry. In addition, the lack of any big-name stars gives it kind of a "B" picture feel. That's unfortunate, because the quality of the acting is quite good. This feel is increased by the slightly dated appearance of the film, particularly in the clothes and hair-dos seen at the beginning, when the "Wildfire" scientific team is being rounded up. The technology looks a bit dated, too. Less than one might expect, though. A lot of time and money went into sets with real instruments and up-to-date technology when the movie was filmed. "The Andromeda Strain" is one of Hollywood's best "techno-thrillers". The plot is both taut and plausible, the relatively "no-name" cast is good, and the technology holds up surprisingly well. It's not as good as the book, (which, by the way, I recommend reading whether you see the flick or not), but it's still well worth having.
Rating:
Summary: This is the real thing, folks
Review: Overall, a wonderful treatment of the book. Having majored in microbiology and biochemistry I can recognize the "rights" and the "wrongs" in the story, and yet I am as enthralled by it as when I was a kid. One of the things I really appreciate about it today is its depiction of scientists as human beings, with all their tempers, mistakes, and cover-ups. Excellent humor, as well. And oh, the sight of the microtome and the sound of vacuum pumps! There are many deviations from the book, of course, but most are well done, or at least tolerable. The only one that really irritates me is its insertion of such gratuitous phrases as "hippy", "love-in", and "pot" in an obvious attempt at early 70's commercial appeal.
Rating: 
Summary: A Perfect Film!
Review: Most of Crichton's fabulous works have been made laughable when filmed. However, THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN is a wonderful adaptation of his classic novel. As others have told the storyline, I will not waste your time be regurgitating it. The one change of Dr. Leavitt from male to female improves the film, IMO. It also adds some great humor. It's also enjoyable to see scientists that look like scientists, not hot studs and big breasted bimbos. The story is realistic, and as I said, a perfect adaptation of his novel. My only complaint is the thrown in narration explaining the piece of paper that had caused the machine to not ring its bell when the new messages came in. Other than that, it's a fabulous film. :) (I was able to get one of the few remaining copies of the now out-of-print DVD widescreen version) Go to an auction site and get it if you can.. Highly recommended!
Rating: 
Summary: Read the Book
Review: "Read the book". That's the most common expression you hear from people who have just seen a movie based on a book they've read. Movies are rarely true to the book, and those that are, are generally short of quality. That's the case with Andromeda Strain. Great book. And the movie is very close to it. But books and movies are two different things. In this case, the book excels, and the movie is ok. For science fiction fans, it's pretty good. If you're not a SF fan, you'll hate it. Some of the shortcomings of the movie have to do with the lack of information. The book, although relatively short, is very good at describing some of the more technical details to us non-MD's and non-biochemists. But the movie just skips right on through and leaves you basically clueless. Maybe a narration would have helped? A secret government project, codenamed "Scoop", has been sending a small satellite into the earth's upper atmosphere to retrieve samples of what floats there. The government probably does have a second agenda concerning this project, but I don't want to spoil it for you. The satellite brings back a mysterious tiny bacteria-like lifeform and lands in a small southwest desert town, killing almost all citizens almost instantly. A pre-determined team of four scientists (including a cardiovascular surgeon) is assembled and shipped off to a top-secret southern Nevada government installation to figure out what it's all about. The book and movie are both quite technical and may bore some people. I found the entire subject matter quite fascinating, and highly recommend the book (Michael Crichton) first. Then if you enjoy it, watch the movie. If you see the movie first, you may be discouraged from reading the book. That's why I recommend the book first.
Rating:
Summary: Sci-fi classic blends techno and high-drama
Review: The US gov't, eager to discover new forms of bio-weapons in the form of microscopic lifeforms floating dormant in space, launches a series of "scoop" satellites into orbit. When one lands in a small southwestern town, and is opened by the local doctor, one of these newly discovered bacteria escapes and annihilates the town. Completely unprepared for what they've unleashed, and with no guarantee they can deal with (let alone identify) what they've discovered before it spreads out of the desert, the government activates its top secret lab, "Wildfire". This would probably be the basic plot of half of Crichton's novels, but the resulting film excels over them. The scientists, professional at first, slowly come apart, subtley teasing us with the possibility that they have already become infected. Director Robert Wise (in what may have been an audition for his later role directing the first Star Trek film) brilliantly weaves the techno-babble through the story. After 18 hour days just trying to identify what they're dealing with, the scientists at Wildfire are about as receptive to techo-bable as we are. The technology which weighs down most stories actually smoothes over the plot rather than dragging it down. This is probably the film that taught Hollywood that thinking charachters can still be human. Now if only the film could give hollywood a refresher.....
Rating:
Summary: Better than the book!
Review: It's rare, at least in my experience, when a movie turns out to be better than the book upon which it is based. We have such a situation here, where Crichton's spare volume is fleshed out in a very satisfying manner. Remember, the film was made in 1971, so the on-screen and behind-the-scenes technologies are rudimentary by today's standards. The original film wasn't the best technical effort I've ever seen, and the DVD doesn't improve on the tape at all. But the story is there, the acting is there, Crichton is there, and I'll be there every time it's shown. Superb!!
Rating:
Summary: A Very Good Science Fiction Movie
Review: Most efforts that have been made to do movies on Michael Crichton's books have been failures. But happily a few have turned out to be good and successful moviesThe Andromeda Strain is one of them. (The other two films being Jurassic Park and The Lost World)The Andromeda Strain tells the story of a group of scientists who must race against time to find a cure to a deadly alien virus before it wipes out all life on Earth.Full of scientific detail on how they go about finding a cure, and the human drama played by a cast of fine actors (Arthur Hill, David Wayne, James Olson, and Kate Reid).Screenplay by Nelson Gidding.Based on the novel by Michael Crichton.Directed by Robert Wise.Music by Gil Melle.Special Effects by Douglas Trumbull.
|
