Supernova

Why, oh why, do I keep getting suckered by promotional trailers for DVDs? Anyway, if you have seen the promo trailers for this film, be warned: they are clearly concerning another film never made, brief clips of which showing up in this one for no discernible reason whatsoever.

The principle problem here is a script that thinks it's a remake of "The Day After" but which would fit just about any daytime soap-opera. Since the premise of the film derives from astro-physics, the finale - a typically empty 'happy ending', having absolutely no grounding in any science whatsoever - makes no sense whatsoever.

Although the film actually avoids religion, let's put the matter in religious terms for clarification: Imagine Judgment Day; and God is really pee-ed off and decides no one is worth saving. Suddenly, Peter Pan's Tinkerbell pops up and reminds God that if he really really believes, creation can be saved. God smiles down on a half-dozen soap-opera stars (no, they haven't repented, what's to repent?), and suddenly we're all back in Eden.... - Scientifically speaking, that's "Supernova".

What brilliant con-artist convinced anybody this film could be made? And who are the emotionally troubled people who would like this garbage? By the way, if you're wondering whether one could watch this turkey all the way through, the answer is no; after giving it some 20 minutes, sheer boredom demanded I started skipping scenes sequentially trying to find something interesting to watch. I didn't. But I did watch the whole of the finale to see if there was anything important I'd missed. There wasn't.

And there wouldn't be anything important missed if you skipped the whole film.

This movie is full of holes. It's the middle of the day in Sydney at the same time as the Sahara, India and what I presume to be Central America, when they're all meant to be in Australia they keep changing the side of the road that they're driving on, the number plates are not Australian (the cars either), half the street signs don't even exist here, waitresses in cafés don't wear uniforms (except at Starbucks), the only Australian accents are terrible, the desert scenes are definitely more like 14 than 4 hours drive from Sydney - everything about Australia in particular is just wrong! And that's because clearly none of it was shot in Australia. Oh and incidentally - we don't have the death penalty in Australia.

Extend that analysis to pretty much every other aspect of the movie and the only conclusion you can draw is that whoever wrote the script lives on a desert island without so much as an Internet connection. Even the Sun manages to explode on only one lateral plane (that which includes the orbit of Earth), and when the city's burning, the riot police waste their water on looters.

It's really difficult to tell what's going on where (and when) because of all these obvious inconsistencies. It wasn't until Luke Perry says "St Louis is half way around the other side of the world" that I really became convinced that they were meant to be in Australia. Couple all of that with a triumvirate of bad special effects, flat acting and a recycled doomsday premise and you've got a real stinker. A complete waste of time if you ask me.

Still, it wasn't as bad as The Perfect Storm.

What can I say about this? Well, firstly, there is no need for me to give a summary of this mini-series when people can just easily refer to the standard disaster film formula: smart guy with all the answers, pretty but tough woman, cute kid, corrupt government agent/politician/business man who is only interested in some greedy proposition and some CGI effects. There isn't a sweet little dog that, of course, survives deadly situations but the script writer does toss in a serial killer who escapes. There are also destruction by meteors that seem to be intelligent with the way they just know how to land on structures of significance ('Oh look, there's the Taj Mahal- let's blow it up. There's the Sydney Opera House- get it! Look the scientist who can set everyone straight; he has to go!').

Basically, 'Supernova' has been done many times before and the previous efforts have been much superior. The science behind the concept is so ridiculous that they resort to techno-babble in the hopes the audience won't notice. Although the story is supposedly set in Australia, the director and the actors don't seem to know this and are confused whether the location should be America, Australia, the UK or South Africa (the shift in scenery and accents just gets irritating after the first half-hour). While one can't blame the CGI effects for being far from great given the lower budget of the series, this could have been avoided if it hadn't bothered to show off.

What could have save 'Supernova' was if the plot was solid and the characters were interesting but it didn't even have that. The characters were so flat and uninspiring that they just left the audience praying that sun would just swallow these people up, and the plot was tedious and too drawn-out.

If you want a disaster film, stick with 'The Day After Tomorrow' or 'Independence Day'. They too may be predictable but they know it and do it well!

This "movie" was broad-casted last night on a french network. I couldn't believe my eyes how bad it was. There's absolutely nothing good about it. I mean nothing. Acting was zero, "science" completely stupid, backgrounds and CGI look like being painted by a 50's artist, and so on. I understand that even better artists need sometimes to pay big taxes so they have to play in second choice productions...But please ! Not in such a crap ! About location : Cape Town, South Africa, is perfectly recognizable in most exterior scenes (Table Mountain with Signal Hill on its right when looking from the sea; the business center of the city; even in some street scenes you can see typical buildings with Old Cape Dutch style; the license plates are definitely capetonians; on a house wall there is a plate claiming that the house is protected by Chubb Security Company; in one scene you can see a train, which is a Metro one, used in CPT,...etc.).

A "movie" to forget. There's nothing else to do with it.

The Hallmark Network has chosen to create a series of movies to supplement their "Hall of Fame" product. They are off to a decidedly mixed start with "Supernova." Certainly, their timing could not have been worse, given events in New Orleans. Too bad they couldn't have scheduled another film for this time.

"Supernova" would a made a pretty good two hour disaster movie. Cut out the "dime store" space special effects and the trite "serial killer" subplot and you'd have something pretty memorable. Unfortunately, the "solar flare" effects look about as realistic as Disney 2D animation. While not particularly surprising, given the limited effects budget for TV fare, the bad "space effects' contrast jarringly with the pretty good "earth effects" on display.

Peter Fonda plays, flatly, a world famous astronomer who predicts the sun will go supernova (enlarge, then explode) within a month (or, was it a week). Luke Perry plays an astrophysicist(!), also flatly, and is the principal protagonist. Lance Henriksen plays his stock baddie. The women come off much better in the acting department, most notable are Tia Carrere (as a government agent), Emma Samms (as a crusading TV news commentator), Clemency Burton-Hill (as a scientist) and an unnamed actress who plays Fonda's bartender-squeeze.

Jettison an hour and "Supernova" would be good enough for a "7". As presented, however, it barely squeaks by as a "5".