|Page 9 of 27:||               |
|Index||262 reviews in total|
About the best thing I can say for this movie is that it wasn't totally stupid. You didn't have people doing idiotic things to move the story along. Having said that, no one, especially the writers, is terribly bright. This appears to be a Star Trek story that wasn't good enough for the TV show, so they made it into a movie. Go figure. The SFX make it so that it isn't a bad way to pass the time when you have absolutely nothing else to do and the action is plausible if not very original. I'd rate it as good entertainment for insomniacs.
I really hate giving bad reviews, so please believe me when I say, "Oh God, why?" Even a kitsch-90s sci-fi horror buff like myself couldn't get into this amazingly star-studded yet lackluster movie.
The plot was absurdly basic, yet devoid of any sarcasm or humor. Not only couldn't I succumb to a moment of sinking into fantasy, but I couldn't even let out a simple laugh. Painful. I mean, Contact was easier to watch.
James Spader, although wonderful, may have rivaled Larry Fishburne's performance in Event Horizon, but it wasn't as inspired as most of his films. And the main evil-half-human-alien-force here [I don't care to even look up his name], was no Sam Neil, in terms of human-meets-alien-force-and-twists-inexorably-into-egomania-and-insanity.
There's not much to say about "Supernova". The opening two or three short
scenes say it all. Do those who watched it remember what they were? I sure
do, and it was a message to me that we had wasted our couple of bucks on
rental and shouldn't throw away two hours on it.
We did anyway, and it's difficult to imagine the film being any worse than it was. The next few rounds at the video store my wife isn't picking out anything - she's in the penalty box.
Ronnie - you must not watch a lot of movies, do you? Because there were a
whole bunch of stars (although no blockbuster stars) in this movie. That
what made the darn thing so disappointing. But seriously, if you've never
heard of James Spader and Lou Diamond Phillips, what are you doing
commenting on movies in the first place?
I have a question about space movies. Why must all futuristic computers sound like phone sex operators?
Oh, and another question. Why was this movie called Supernova? Talk about blatant false advertising.
And why did the ending have to suck so bad. Ooooh, their eyes changed colors. And that ending was perhaps the cheesiest thing since Kraft Cheese and Macaroni!
And now a question for some of the posters about this movie. At least one said they rented it based on how horrible the reviews were. Are you that stupid? Hmmmm, this movie is supposed to suck really bad. But I have nothing better to do with my time than to waste it.
Supernova got trashed by the critics when it came out. And by no means
should one expect 2001, or for that matter, even 2010. What does stand out
in this movie is James Spader playing an ACTION HERO. Read it again,
not a typo. Playing a steely eyed ice blooded pilot, he really pulls it
The movie breaks absolutely no new ground, but it's good popcorn sci-fi.
Frankly, I'm surprised Spader was able to get cast in this role. I would have expected it to go to someone along the lines of Larry Fishburne, or perhaps Stellan Skarsgard for the more budget conscious (and don't talk to me about quality until you've seen the A-1 stinker Deep Blue Sea). He obviously buffed up tremendously from any other role he's had, and you forget the sniveling yuppie cast he inhabited in the 80's.
Check it out just for that reason.
This movie deserves a bit better reviews than it has been getting, even
though I agree with most of what has been said. Probably the biggest
suspension of disbelief for me was not anything to do with the science
fiction, but that the characters watch each other getting slaughtered
without working up the slightest sweat over it. They act like the most
recently dead was just left at the last bus stop.
Nonetheless, its a well made thriller in a space setting which is more worth watching than a Star Trek rerun.
Let me start by saying that Supernova is not, by any means, a good movie.
But I'm going to give it some credit because it's very evident that there
were serious production problems. I mean the origonal director had his name
taken off it, and the other two (one of which was Francis Ford Coppola) also
refused to be credited, the name Thomas Lee was used in replacement.
At least they had their head on straight for the effects, which are gorgeous and very well done. However, the story falls horribly short, the acting is forced (no one looks like they even want to be there), and there are plot holes galore. It seems to me that there may have been a good movie there, initially. But due to major problems during production, the directors vision was smashed and everything went to hell.
I watched the DVD version and the deleted scenes make the movie a little better, I really prefered the alternate ending to the one used in the movie. But if they wanted to make it good, they would basically have to start again from scratch, but they could hold on to the special effects. All in all, Supernova is a valiant attempt, but an awful failure. I give it 3 stars out of 10.
it was between this or mission to mars for my sci-fi fix. i heard mtm was a joke. this one was the joke. spader and williams took the paycheck on this one. there was nothing you havnt seen already in other movies. this was just a culmination of 4 or 5 other movies. acting was poor, story was poor, directing was poor. and the name supernova, what supernova?? there was a 15 second stint at the very end of the movie about a supernova. within 15 min. of watching this movie, i had it figured out. the only difference was my ending was much, much better. the dvd has an alternate ending that had a 20 second difference from the big screen that was way better than what they ran in the theaters. so why didnt they keep the alternate ending??? a two year old could have told them the alternate was better. when the credits started to roll i was pissed. i thought there was another 15 min. when everything would come together, but it didnt. very unsatisfying. wait for it to come out on hbo! PS. anyone want to buy a slightly used copy??
I rented this on DVD just to see how bad it was and though not great, it
didnt even get near as bad as "Mission to Mars" which I just hated! Too bad
there was no commentary because Id like to know what they were aiming for.
Why all the sex? Why not more character moments? Better dialoge?
For Angela Basset to sign on there must have been some good ideas on the drawing baord. Why was James Spader talking so monotone the whole time. Why did Robert Forrester have a couple of scenes and thats all? Interesting to see the alternate ending but that wouldnt have been more interesting than what they did. I was a little confused. Were they evolving? Seems like too many people had their hands on the movie and that in Hollywood is deadly. Better luck next time.
I was running out of films that I wanted to watch, so never
having seen anything about this movie, I rented it because it looked to at
least be an action adventure movie. If this movie had a plot, I failed to
figure out what it was. The special effects are fairly good, and strangely
enough I actually enjoyed watching it. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone
I guess I should have had a clue about the quality of this movie due to the fact that it doesn't have any "Stars" in it. I have never heard of or seen any of the cast before!
Save your time and money, and watch something else!
|Page 9 of 27:||               |
|Plot summary||Ratings||Newsgroup reviews|
|External reviews||Parents Guide||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|