A for Andromeda

'A FOR ANDROMEDA is an example of what could be called conceptual science fiction', says producer Alison Willett in the 'extras' of the DVD of this film. She hoped the BBC would commission more of that, but it did not. They declined for instance to remake the sequel. This film was made in ten days on a low budget, but the result overcame those limitations. The casting was inspired. Jane Asher was superb as the woman professor, perfectly underplaying the role to make it more effective. And the irresistible Kelly Reilly plays both the young mathematician and her double, the space girl Andromeda. She has a way of mesmerising viewers, which was just what was needed. I have read some of the other reviews of this film and was shocked that some of them seem to have been so disappointed to see a thinker's rather than a thrill-seeker's sci fi movie. There are no exploding cars, machine guns, colliding stars, grey aliens, or terrifying ogres in this film, not even a single spaceship. When the initial TV series of this story was broadcast in 1961 (see my review), it caused a nationwide sensation in the UK. The astronomer and astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle's concept of a radio signal from another galaxy transmitting a code for the creation of an alien being blew the collective minds of the public. The usual BBC idiots wiped most of that series and only one whole episode, part of the final episode, and a few scattered fragments survived; a book of the story followed. The next year the sequel story was transmitted as ANDROMEDA BEAKTHROUGH (1962, see my review, as this series does survive in its entirety), and the book of that followed in 1965. The first series introduced the beautiful Julie Christie as the alien girl Andromeda; she did not yet know how to act, but everyone was dazzled by her looks. She was unavailable for the sequel, so the girl alien was played by Susan Hampshire. (I got to know her in the following year but she never once mentioned her recent adventure as a space creature.) To return to the newer film, another key ingredient was the well-measured and low key performance by Tom Hardy as the brilliant young scientist, who is the only one who can work the computer built according to the specifications of the signal. The film was excellently directed by John Strickland. The film is also a love story. And of course there is also some spying, an irate general, and an underground bunker. It all works, whatever some soreheads may claim. I knew Fred Hoyle pretty well. He shook the world up with his first science fiction novel, THE BLACK CLOUD (1957), which has suddenly become more relevant again in a surprising way. It needs to be pointed out that many of the aspects of A FOR ANDROMEDA have also become surprisingly relevant at the moment. I have no space to elaborate on this. But it all goes to show that Fred was decades ahead of his time in just about everything. And, by the way, there was no Big Bang. Fred was right about that too. The time is coming when everyone will be forced to admit it, no matter how much of a blow to their pride it may be to do so. Geniuses like Fred do not come along often enough.

unlike everyone else here, i enjoyed it thoroughly. granted, i am not old enough to remember the original, i believe this to be an advantage. i had nothing to compare it to. on its own it is an excellent piece of British SCI FI. i enjoyed it a lot i am going to find the original now and watch that. but i will not compare them. like Battlestar Gallactica. you cant really compare them, so why bother. i know it is a remake but it doesn't mean have to compare them does it. secondly who cares about some minor holes in the science of it. does it detract from the enjoyment of the show? there are so many shows that don't follow the science of today so why should this?

all in all i really liked this. well done the BBC.

Any schoolboy would be ashamed of the scientific mistakes in this. For example, the team send radio messages to Andromeda and get immediate replies! Andromeda is millions of light years away and so any radio signals would take millions of years to get there and back! Also, at one point in the story a technician saves a genome or record of the entire genetic code of a human being on a single floppy disk! Fred Hoyle would be rotating in his grave.

The acting is equally bad. The two male leads are the "geekiest" type of anoraks one could possibly hope not to meet, and they are as wet as they come. Neither speak their lines clearly. And the Army General is about as nonmilitary as you could get...he looks like your average window cleaner.

Please please please just go back to making them the way they originally did in the sixties, BBC...

Despite some of the disparaging comments on here, I gave this a go and I think it was more than worth an hour and a half of my time. I enjoy Si-fi that's more based on ideas than SFX, and this was a prime (if somewhat truncated) example. I agree they could have done with more time but I didn't see anything wrong with the acting, Tom Hardy being particularly good. All in all very watchable stuff, which deals with issues from the more interesting end of science fiction..

p.s, paulj-murphy, I know you probably wanted to look smart but they didn't send any messages to Andromeda, they only conversed with the computer, which wasn't millions of light-years away after all...

** 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.