Sadly Over-hyped

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

This is a fine example of British science-fiction. Necessarily wordy due to its low-budget, successful British SF has always had to rely on strong concepts, strong writing and carefully created atmosphere. In the same vain as Quatermass and Dr Who much of the action consists of people in a room talking about abstracts. Some will be bored to tears; but those with an imagination may find this story of predeterminism vs personal will and morality very engaging. If there's a flaw then it's that some of the, very real, science is over-simplified to an unbelievable degree. An audience is able to accept the idea of an alien transmission containing instructions on how to make a malevolent supercomputer. But the idea that these scientists are also experts in genetic engineering and quickly have all of the expertise and equipment necessary for their task stretches credibility too far. It's a shame because these problems could have been easily avoided with a little more creativity. At heart though this is a good, old-fashioned, morality play with some impressive performances and a rare intelligence.

I thought this was a very enjoyable piece of BBC Sci-Fi drama. Yes there were flaws, it was even patronising at times but I liked the look and feel of it. I found the idea very scary and plausible. The idea that life is a code and as such can be downloaded and that it can even even behave like an internet Trojan. Very scary! A previous user has stated that it was heavily flawed scientifically (realtime communication with Andromeda). But there is no real time communication. They build a computer from a signal originating 2 million years ago. The interaction they have is with the computer once built not with Andromeda.Not a great film but definitely a great story.

This pointless remake of the 1961 classic adds nothing to the original. Apparently "updated" to 1970's production (and score), 80's graphics and the occasional 90's technical term, it doesn't even qualify as an homage to the era.The characters have no depth and less credibility. The one dimensional depiction of Dawnay (Jane Asher) blindly pursuing the holy grail of genetics is an affront to anyone who has ever entered a laboratory. The essence of the scientific method is to question everything, and no scientist with more than half a brain would take the course of those portrayed here. Even the initially gullible Hardy (John Fleming) is unrealistically slow to develop a conscience and realise the potential issues raised by his actions. This is the kind of portrayal that gets scientists a bad name.Equally insulting are the scenes that portray the destruction of monitors and keyboards as integral to the destruction of the alien computer. How many people are actually stupid enough to believe this nowadays? Regardless of familiarity with the original version, the plot is 100% predictable from the first few minutes right up until the last five. In that last five minutes is the most dramatic plot point of the entire film. The turning of the creature against its creator, the examination of humanity vs. the alien, the very human moral dilemmas, freedom and pre-destination, all take place in under two minutes. There is no examination of the conflicts faced by the creature or their resolution. (It feels suspiciously as if there was a large edit here.) Similarly, throughout the film any opportunity to explore morality, the role of technology, or cloning is passed by. According to Richard Fell (BBC4 web-site), one of the key questions addressed is "How complex does a computer have to be before we consider it to have some kind of human qualities?". This has been under constant examination since 1950, and Alan Turing's paper "Computing machinery and intelligence" (available on-line). This adaptation adds absolutely nothing to the debate, even failing to acknowledge that for over twenty years there has been a growing opinion that it doesn't actually matter.Sadly the film isn't even bad enough to be amusing.If you're interested in the ideas of the film then read Crichton's original "Andromeda Strain", although the plot of this version is actually closer to Sagan's "Contact" (more investigative, and perhaps even more worthy than Crichton's). {Edit: Oops. That should have been "the original 'A for Andromeda' by Hoyle/Elliot", of course. Not "Andromeda Strain".}

** Contains minor spoiler** Despite being a remake of the 1960s BBC series, this comes across as an uninspired cross between Contact and Species. It is filmed using the typical cheap BBC Sci-Fi manner i.e. dull, grey, overcast and in a quarry. They spend the budget on the one "special effect", which is, of course, destroyed at the end. The story is unconvincing and the basic science is badly flawed (real time communication to Andromeda anyone?)It tries to pad out a thin story line with the addition of a few extraneous few subplots, namely a love triangle, some espionage and the oh so stereotypical "government subverting science for evil" thing. Even Jane Asher can't drag this up from being a long, slow, and predictable hour and a half.