IMDb > Supernova (2000/I) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Supernova
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Supernova More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 11 of 29: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]
Index 285 reviews in total 

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A B-grade porno-sci-fi hybrid whose only salvation was its SFX

1/10
Author: Sam-71 from Sydney, Australia
6 February 2000

What can I say? I was always taught that unless I had something nice to say that I shouldn't say anything at all. Well at least the special effects can satisfy that requirement - they were excellent. But other than that, Supernova was very disappointing. It brings up (again) that age old question of: "How can they spend so much money on a film and not get a decent script out of it???" This always astounds me. As a film student at UCLA, I can never understand why there are so many terrible scripts out there. Don't the producers realise that there are a ton of students who could give them a much better script for a lot less money - heck, I'd do it for free!

There were so many opportunities for the film to be very good. The set was excellent, the effects great. But the acting and script really let it down. For some reason, every few minutes seemed to call for some kind of sex scene between various crew members. It was seriously like a kind of soft porno set in space, the sexual theme carrying right on until the very end. In fact, the closing lines of the film were sexual in nature. The music was even a little porn-like; definitely not suited to the theme of the film

I would definitely recommend waiting until this comes out on video, or even waiting until it is on TV. Although it is one of those films that is so bad it's funny. I only hope that "Pitch Black" is of a little more substance.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

where are the good sci-fi screen writers

Author: red-91
6 February 2000

There are four main assets to a great sci-fi flick. Great acting, superb visional effects, suspense, and a great written plot. Alien, Matrix, and Terminator all have these wonderful qualities. Without a great written plot the movie is a fluke. Special effects are not but cotton-candy when there is not plot. What a waste of talent, money, and time.

**1/2 of ***** stars

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Avoid at all cost

1/10
Author: jayjia from NJ
2 February 2000

This is the worst movie I've seen in the theaters in recent memory.

The only reason I think anyone can rate this a 9 or a 10 is that they think that since they wasted so much money seeing it, that they would like other people to as well, or simply they thought it was funny in a sarcastic way.

This movie had no redeeming characteristics. You can get as good special effects on TV, there was no continuous plot, the actors (although skilled) were dry and there was definately no scientific advisor consulted on this project.

Don't see it in the theater, don't see it on video, don't even watch it when it comes out on network TV.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

The Actors Seemed to be in a Trance!

3/10
Author: Kirasjeri from Brooklyn NY
1 February 2000

What struck me most about this sci fi flick was that the actors, especially veteran James Spader, seemed to be in a trance. There was very little sense of involvement and emotion expressed by them. Lines were delivered very matter-of-fact, and Spader was often inaudible! Robert Forster had little more than a cameo role, and even when in extreme physical distress he seemed bored.

The plot is derivative from so many others and not as well realized. A distress call brings a medical vessel into contact with a distant mining colony with just one survivor - who is brought on board with some packages one crewman is stupid enough to open. Very stupid. The survivor is also stupidly not placed under guard or confinement even when the captain leaves the ship to recover something on the colony. Not very likely. The crew of this space ship did indeed seem remarkably dumb, including a sexually-addicted female.

The special effects are good, but somehow unfulfilling due to the plot. Most of all, I never really cared much about the crewmen, not even the Angela Basset character. And characters we are not involved with equals a substandard movie.

When I saw this film one afternoon in a theater of 200 seats I was the only one there. It wasn't painful to be there, like it was with "Wing Commander", which was worse, but I'm glad I only paid the matinee half price for it.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

better then Wing Commander

5/10
Author: Sean Finnigan (punctate@hotmail.com) from Saskatoon, Canada
30 January 2000

The first odd thing about this you will notice is the fact that this movie has no beginning credits. There is no credits of any kind nor is the title shown; they show the MGM logo and then it starts right into a shot of the ship Nightingale. The title of the movie is shown at the end of the movie and during the ending credits. The reason for this is that directors and producers kept quitting during production so they had to keep replacing the directors and producers. It's a wonder they finished the project at all; it's a good thing this movie is only 97 minutes long any longer this movie would have really sucked. Supernova is ok as these really bad science fiction movies go; it is better then last year's first bad stinker of the year Wing Commander. The reason why I say this movie was better then Wing Commander was the fact there was a lot of sex and you do get to see the tits of a good looking chick (and unfortunately butt of Nick) so there was a little less pointless chit-chat. The problem with both films is the fact that they are kind of like watching an episode of a television series. The sex and nudity is the only thing that can't be done on prime time TV but the rest of it can be on TV. Supernova really doesn't much of a plot; the violence in this film doesn't happen until near the end but the films action sequences don't offer anything special. Lessons Learned: Sex in zero gravity is popular. People must go into stasis during dimension jump. Dimension jump can be deadly especially if your face forges with the material inside the stasis pod. Touching bombs can make you stronger.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Gratuitous use of lens flare!!!

7/10
Author: Jarrod Lombardo (jarrod-2) from Socorro, NM, USA
30 January 2000

Go see it. There are some unrealistic physics things, like not exploding without a pressure suit in space, but movies are a different universe so we can assume that space is not a near vacuum in the movie universe. There are many many lens flare and unfocused lightbulb shots. Another cool thing is that there are no opening credits. Go see it.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

utterly unpraiseworthy

Author: Pookie-23 from DC
30 January 2000

Wow. i saw this movie last night for 2 bucks at a bargain theater. guess what? I want my money and time back. This is one of those movies that is so poorly done, you don't know whether to blame the actor the writers, the director, or all three. I saw many people walk out this movie. I only stuck around in hopes that it's somehow redeem itself at the end. surprise surprise, it didn't.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Where's the ending?

1/10
Author: TJAZAR from USA
30 January 2000

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was looking forward to seeing "Supernova" a bit, mainly because, as IGN Movies says, "nothing blows up bigger than a sun." And there's no sun (or star) bigger than a blue giant. So, what went wrong? First off, there's zero character development. We hardly get to know the characters throughout the entire movie, except for their main quality (this one's smart, this one's a hero, this one's crazy). Also, we are thrust right into the story, without much of an exposition. I guess the producers figured we would already know the characters.

(WARNING: Minor spoiler)

And why bother with killing the captain? It's seemed like a "Oops, he died. In other news..." situation. We know the facts behind the reason of his death, but why even have him in the movie if he's only in there for about 15 minutes?

(WARNING: Spoiler)

Another thing: what's with the artifact? It had so much potential (after all, the things 9-dimensional!). But again, it was wasted, as the only thing it's good for is blowing up a star. Which brings me to my next point...

(WARNING: Major spoiler)

The supernova sucked. Picture the explosion created by a dying blue giant, hundreds of times larger than our sun. Picture the shockwave vaporizing anything and everything in its path. Picture the heroes desperately trying to escape. Now picture the whole thing lasting for about 5 seconds. What a HUGE disappointment. Also, the computer aboard the ship says the resulting explosion will reach Earth in 51 years, and will either destroy our planet, or create new life. But do we get to find out what happens? No. All we get is the fact that the two survivors switched an eyeball each, and the woman is pregnant. Whoopee. In summary, this movie is like a 31 chapter book. The director decides to start on chapter 2, and then skips every other chapter, effectively missing both the beginning and the end. "Supernova" is easily a contender for "Worst Movie of 2000."

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Not worth the money, or the time

2/10
Author: iceburn from Omaha, NE
29 January 2000

Wow! That was such a great movie! Ha! Just kidding. Two pretty awful movies in about 2 weeks (Super Nova and Galexyquest). All I can say is that I'm glad I didn't pay to see this movie. The acting seemed straight out of school (and not a particularly good school at that) and the storyline just fizzled out after about…ooooh… 5 minutes. There where a few good special effects, and I think I laughed twice....once for sure. Some of the actions they took and technologies they used in the film weren't adequately explained either. I suppose if you've watched Star Trek for a while you could piece it together, but the movie should take care of that. Speaking of Star Trek, ship receives strange distress signal through deep space from a far away planet. No matter how obscene the idea is, the ship goes out of its way to answer the call, only to find out that signal wasn't what it appeared to be… Ring any bells? This movie wasn't even original. The only reason this movie didn't get an F is that eventually I may find a movie where I will get up and leave before it's over and did manage to somehow sit through Supernova. I'm reserving the F's for those films. D-

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Public service

Author: (javier_walker) from Dallas
27 January 2000

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Spoiler content.

I entered this with realistic expectations. High failure rate for Sci-fi and for horror and combining both elements. Must be a 99% failure rate excluding the Aliens movies. I was still surprised at how bad this movie is. It truly makes Event Horizon look like an oscar winner. Both movies are similar in that both have solid cast but share a weak story and bad science. the characters are poorly defined, and of course for this movie foolish. they waste Angela Bassett, James Spader and Lou Diamond Phillips. Mr. Phillips may need a new agent after this and "Bats". Mr. Spader seems to be striving for a Clint Eastwood accent. I found myself groaning and rolling my eyes (and not in a good way)at the science (the explanation of the alien artifact is a laugh)and the dialogue. Honestly, I am finding much better sci-fi on TV than what we cart out to the movies lately.

I would prefer to tell people altogether to stay away in droves but, it has been about a week and I would think it should be on Video by now.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 11 of 29: [Prev][6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history