The Black Hole

I am not going to waste too many words on this simply horrific movie.

The only thing that matches the poor acting the inconsistency in the time line and story telling.

The Arch which is supposedly torn down by the black hole... can be seen standing in the background near the ending.

Additionally.. if they shut down the power... the city lights would've been out. While even at the very end all the lights are still on. Which makes me think... if you know the creature absorbs energy... turn it off straight away! The only thing going for this movie is the alien if self, which doesn't look too bad.

Avoid at all costs if you can.

As a resident of the city in which the movie took place, I enjoyed it mostly for the amazingly silly geographic liberties the filmmakers took with St. Louis. I knew it was going to be entertaining from the moment the Planetarium/Science Center - one of the most well-known buildings in the city - was labeled as the stand-in for the nuclear physics institute where the whole mess started.

From there, it was a silly and stupid ride through bad science and locations that left most of my family going, "But isn't that building in the area they just said was destroyed?" My favorite moment was after the Arch and Downtown St. Louis were destroyed and then we saw Judd Nelson racing down a road...in downtown St. Louis...toward a darkened but obviously still visible and untouched Arch.

The actors performed their roles with earnestness and deserve credit for doing what they could with the silliness of the plot.

I can't believe that I watched the whole movie.

The title was perfect! I was expecting a lot, but all I got is a lame scenario with a weak plot, lame actors, and the creature! "The entity"… That was awful.

There's no doubt, it's not the movie that I'll watch over and over. Besides, it was pretty educational. I can now recognize poor stories in the fly… and these are some tips : 1) If actors seem to read their script to act, just stop watching ; 2) If you got a lot of definitions, to explain obvious stuff, also literally read, just cut the damn movie off; 3) If you see a creature supposed to come from nowhere, following a logical path, I'll say it again : just-cut-it-off.

The theme was interesting. May be if they've concentrate on characters and creature development instead of trying to look scientific, making some theory heard and said takes form… This movie shouldn't even exist.

Whatever, it reveals what American people are expecting from their government facing the unknown : nuclear bombing, a little good talk to morn the loss, and right after explain that it was a painful but a necessary decision…

Can't we put negative score to punish the weakest stuff?

1. Poor acting - at the very least poor depiction of what should have been strong emotions such as living without children, scared, etc. Lead character acts as if he just woke up

Disconnected or no flow at all - such as characters making statements about research they did that they never had time to do (because they spent all time driving or running around)

The "black hole" would not behave at all the way it did in the movie. Suffice to say that there is no "Science" in this fiction.

The whole army behaves like it is in a war with another ... human army. Hiding behind walls, carrying guns, etc.

The only reason I gave it a 2 and not 1 is that it could, nevertheless, be amusing to watch how people have no clue what they are talking about.

Stupendous.

In this SciFi Channel original, an accident in a nuclear lab in St. Louis causes not only the creation of a black hole, but unleashes an alien creature that feeds on energy. A scientist and his female partner team up with a maverick general to solve the growing menace while the military embarks on a typical blow-it-up solution that could wreak disaster for the world.

I found the idea of a small black hole created on Earth intriguing, and it was interesting watching it eat up everything around it. (So it "can't" happen, but hey, it is science fiction!) Unfortunately, screenwriter David Goodin, who is responsible for "Larva," another TV movie that flopped, again shows himself adept at giving us a general plot and characters who are tired and clichéd. You know, the implausible story of the world-threatening event that is handled by the lone scientist (instead of every intelligent professional in the world) and simplistic government officials who make FEMA look good! Even if we accept this script as a mediocre formula tale, we would hope for at least semi-intelligent dialogue and a director who had some slight ability for pacing. (Tibor Tacaks has, according to IMDb, directed some 28 films, and I don't think any of them rated over 5). Perhaps with such a weak structure, we can forgive the wooden, lackluster acting from a cast who must have figured at least it was a way to make a quick buck.

I'm pretty tolerant of formula sci fi, even when the premise is implausible, but this one is bad even for a TV movie.