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 guidemessage board
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 »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 28: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 271 reviews in total 

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

This May Be The Most Boring Science Fiction Movie I've Ever Seen!

1/10
Author: sddavis63 (revsdd@gmail.com) from Niagara Region, Ontario, Canada
22 November 2012

Seriously. One word describes this - boring. Actually two words might describe it more effectively - painfully boring. The adverb may be necessary to capture the dismal nature of this film. The story is silly, the script is weak, the character development is non-existent and the performance are largely uninspired. When I sat down to write a review of this I was thinking I would give it two stars. But then I started thinking - and I realized that I didn't have a single good thing to say about it.

Such as it is, the story is about a sort of medical spaceship named the Nightingale set some time in the future (if the time period was mentioned I missed it.) After the Nightingale receives a mysterious distress signal from over 3000 light years away, the ship's captain (played by Robert Forster) decides to respond. They have to go through something called a "dimension jump" (a way of travelling from one place in the universe to another very quickly) and discover the sender of the message, who has a strange artifact he wants to take back to earth in order to get rich quick.

Painfully boring. Yes. The leads in this are James Spader and Angela Bassett. Both are decent enough actors, but neither could save this, and even their performances were far from their best. It was handy that in order to go through a "dimension jump" everybody has to strip naked. To give credit to those responsible for this, aside from a clear topless shot of Danika (Robin Tunney) and some blurry naked shots of Dr. Evers (Bassett - or, more likely, her double) this aspect of the story wasn't exploited. The ship has a rather strange robot dressed as a World War I fighter pilot because the captain is a history buff and a talking computer with a personality - sort of like HAL from "2001" except that this one is a female named "Sweetie" (please) and it's fallen in love with crewman Benj (Wilson Cruz.) I said that I couldn't think of anything good to say about this. Actually that's not true. It's less than an hour and a half in length. Someone took mercy on those - like me - who would choose to watch this. (1/10)

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

I Give Supernova a 'Meh' out of 'Whatever'

5/10
Author: alanmayer85 from United States
28 December 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I find the lone ship stranded in space routine to be a plot device too often used upon. I also find that, after one finds out they have 17 hours to fix something or they die, having sex in zero g, while that may be enjoyable, doesn't really solve things. So these are small potatoes, I realize that. But what really puts this movie into my list of "Possible Reasons to Go On Murderous Rampage" is that nothing that goes on in the movie seems to resonate with the entire crew. This I chalk up to Walter Hill saying adiós due to creative differences, leaving the studio execs and outside help (Coppola apparently has nothing to do on a Saturday than edit something he has absolutely no interest in doing) to try and piece together something that probably looked really cool written down. The end result is a bunch of really good actors who look bad in space. Not to mention, it's the really bad kind of space.

If you haven't seen the movie, SURPRISE: there's a supernova in it! Well, it's a bit surprising to me, because they mention it, something about a degrading orbit, +17 hours till everyone is incinerated, yada yada, and that's about it. Not joking, that's the attitude everyone has towards this but Lou Diamond Phillips, who decides he'd rather go hang out with the weird alien 9th dimensional yadayada. Robin Tunney can't stop thinking about sex, so she's kind of turned on by the new guy (Peter Facinelli), till he kills her. There's this other problem where James Spader is sabotaged by the New Guy. Turns out the New Guy is the Old Guy, Karl Larsen, the one they thought they were coming for in the first place. So New Guy kills everyone except for Angela Bassett, who he tries to convince this 9th dimensional stuff is the bee's knees. He's forgotten one thing, though, and that is the inevitability of a Plot Hole re-materializing as Deus Ex Machina; James Spader found a rescue shuttle (how New Guy doesn't see this coming, who knows) and the two battle. Well, not really battle. Spader gets tossed around a bunch, Spader lops New Guy's hand off, Spader tries to lock up New Guy, New Guy escapes, rejoins his hand (makes sense, right? 9th dimensional schtuff is better than super-glue) and then dies because he's an idiot. Spader and Bassett leave the galaxy by a space-hair and accidentally melded part of their DNA code, giving Bassett a baby and Happy the end. There, I saved you a lot of time. I made a mistake in not following general consensus on this one being really bad, and now I've told you how ridiculous this movie is. Gosh, I almost forgot to mention, ROBERT FORSTER's in this movie! Well, he knew it was gonna be a bust, so he gets out of the movie before things go to pot. I've heard a lot of people say this movie isn't that bad, but that's I suppose in comparison to night terrors and muggings. No, this is not the worst movie in the world, but does that mean it should be excused? Why should you see it, when you can watch something as bad as AVP and be 10 more times as entertained than watching Supernova. Supernova is a film that had been given up on by its makers, by people who wanted to do right, but inevitably gave it the Hudson reply of "That's it man. Game Over, man. Game Over."

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Star Trek Enterprise III ?

5/10
Author: nieuwlekkerland from Holland
15 October 2004

This movie would have been great as a "Star Trek" Enterprise III series. James Spader seems to be an excellent but slightly foolish captain and he's convincible in his role. Beside Peter Facinelli, whom really sucked at trying to convince any viewer he's more then just a weak, if not bad, actor, the other actors performed rather well. As said, if the movie would have been a part of the Star Trek chronicles that is.... As a SF/Thriller though, as which the film has been categorized, this movie is silly, slightly pathetic in a way and incredibly stupid. As a SF/Thriller the actors take themselves way to serious and the whole thing gets rather sad, then again, it ain't that bad if you don't have Thriller demands;

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

alien meets sphere meets...

7/10
Author: adrian-77 from kingswinford, england
21 February 2001

Although this film has had many knocks, it really isn't that bad. The special effects alone are worth the rental fee, and both Spader and Bassett are always reliable to make the most of the material. The plot concerns the recovery of an illicit miner/scavenger who has sent a distress call to a "space ambulance". Once this miner is on board, with the bounty he has retrieved, all hell, so to speak, breaks loose. Although nowhere near Walter Hill's best (Southern Comfort, anybody?) this is still better than the best of many current action directors.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

" There was a time when I looked forward to Space Jumping the Universe "

8/10
Author: thinker1691 from USA
14 April 2009

As a Sci-Fi fan, I enjoy futuristic film of tomorrow. In this film, " Super Nova ", the audience is taken aboard the Nightingale, a 22nd century Space craft designed to act as a rescue/emergency Hospital ship. It's commanding officer is A.J. Marley (Robert Forster) an experienced individual who despite his obvious credentials in many films does not remain long in the movie. His Co-Pilot is brash and cocky, Nick Vanzant (James Spader) who constantly and dramatically spars with Dr. Kaela Evers (Angela Bassett). Lou Diamond Phillips is surprising as Yerzy Penalosa a medical technician who is so curious, would risk himself to touch the edges of eternity. The story centers on a strange and desperate call from Moon Miners the Far side of the Galaxy requesting emergency assistance. The Nightingale responds immediately only to discover they have damaged their ship, failed to find the Miners and have instead taken aboard Karl Larson, (Peter Facinelli) a lone survivor who fails to inform his rescuers, he has found a 'Dooms-day" device. The power of the Alien device is to replace the existing galaxy with one from the Ninth Dimension. As the crew begins to fall prey to Larson's devious destructive measures, Vanzant seeks to find answers. The special visual effects in the film are incredible as are the interactive action sequences between the space crew and their passenger. The brief nude scenes are tidy at best and do not hamper the plot. Indeed, the final transporter scene is straight out of the novel and leaves one speculating as to 'Einstein's possibilities of two objects occupying the same space. Good fantasy entertainment, fun for Spader and Lou Diamond Phillips fans. ****

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

supersucky

Author: dr_foreman from Brooklyn, NY
22 June 2004

Unbelievably bad sci-fi "thriller" with a curious lack of thrills. This is one of those movies that thinks its audience is really interested in submarine-like sets and cool special effects of space warping instead of proper characterization. The dialog is so technical, and the cutting so confusing, that I had to rely on the music to tell me what was going on.

Truckloads of sex are dumped into the movie in an attempt to make it less sterile than other sci-fi films, but since we don't really know or care about the people involved in these zero gravity hookups, the result is that the movie feels like tacky softcore porn in outer space. Things improve a bit when the villain shows up, but it's a shame that he's played by a petulant brat instead of a proper actor.

Good thing Angela Bassett turned down "Monster's Ball," eh?

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Needs More Supernova

4/10
Author: utgard14 from USA
22 December 2013

Ridiculous "loud & lazy" sci-fi thriller that makes ample use of Robin Tunney's willingness to disrobe but has little time for things like logic and characterization. The plot is that a search and rescue ship in deep space answers a distress beacon. For their trouble, they get Peter Facinelli. Oversexed, overly derivative mess of a film offers nothing you haven't seen before and better. Hell, just a few years before this was Event Horizon, with a very similar plot but a much better movie. A dark-haired and particularly buff James Spader gives the only performance worth mentioning with a straight face. How about that laugh-inducing ending? You wouldn't think a movie that has the names of both Francis Ford Coppola and Walter Hill attached to it could be this bad but it just goes to show I guess.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

An non-realistic projection of anxieties

Author: mn_aqua from Netherlands
30 June 2003

In my view the film is non-realistic. Although the story line is good and interesting the direction in which the story develops betrays a paranoid and fearful view (of the makers) on what the future might bring. The first thing that strikes is that the producers/writers find it so frightening that machines could take over and gain power that they gave the main computer a willingness to have emotions and to fall in love with one of the crewmembers! Eventually it is a film in which the computers and machines show more emotions (and are willing to do so) than the crewmembers who appear to be as cold as ice, and very computing. The men and women aboard all seem to be paranoid and seeing bugbears when they stumble on a bounty hunter who shows admirable generosity and love. The hunter also appears to be very wise. Still the director of this movie draws him out as the villain that should be stopped and put in jail. The crewmembers who act constantly out of anxiety on the other hand are at the "good" side. The most cold and fearful among them will eventually survive and return safely to their home. The "villain" (just a regular guy that has found something of tremendous positive value) who comes in peace and immediately offers to share his treasure is abruptly rejected and violently robbed of his bounty.

Besides the makers of this science fiction film were paradoxically very afraid of what new science is bringing. In the beginning we see a couple, standing on the "good" side, wishing to have a baby and starting a procedure to get permission from the government. One of them then says: "Don´t worry baby. We are people who are not genetically modified, so undoubtly we will get permission to beget a child."

The makers of this film were obviously troubled by their own mental bugbears. These are the people that we don´t need any more creations from. Luckily there are others, like Steven Spielberg, who do not project their anxieties in their movies as evil phenomena but as things to overcome.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

alas

Author: oneinfinity from United States
6 January 2003

what obviously could have been a decent movie got hacked into a pretty lame waste of your time. sadly, even though the film boasts the talents of james spader and angela bassett (who is just too sexy for words), this film makes one of the critical error that so many other "sci-fi" films makes these days, it believes that the action sequences are the most important part of the film. Walter Hill apparently abandoned his post as director of the film, over what i'm not sure, but the pasted together remains speak for themselves. the screen presences of spader and bassett, nor a shirtless robin tunney and decent special effects aren't enough to distract you from the feeling that you're having your brain sucked out through your eyes. though, it's not completely unwatchable, just have a movie you know is good to watch after this one because it will leave unsatisfied.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A movie of almosts

5/10
Author: mrandy from Seville, Oh
8 December 2002

Supernova is full of almosts. The special effects are almost good enough to make it thrilling (the "inter-dimensional jump" was pretty cool). The acting was good enough to almost save the script. Yes it is a story about nothing. This med crew goes on a rescue mission only to have to turn right back around.

And if they would have left the deleted scenes in this movie, it might have almost been accepted by the movie-going public. Nonetheless, it would have been a much more interesting film with the scenes in.

As is, it is almost good enough to recommend. I give it a C+. If you are a sci-fi fan, it is good enough to watch for the special effects.

It is not as bad as the awful wreck known as Wing Commander.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 3 of 28: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

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