Max Q

With knowledge of NASA and the space shuttle, I have to say that this movie was DREADFUL. It was slapped together in under two months with hardly any research and had even less accuracy than Armageddon. I find it shocking that they were actually able to land an astronaut (who I will not name) as technical advisor and still be so far-fetched. The acting was horrific, the special effects looked like something out of an FAA crash animation video, and some of the concepts (assigning a news reporter to the mission a day before launch, using a blow torch in space, and landing the space shuttle on an L.A. highway) are too far-fetched even for a 70's James Bond (Moonraker seemed more real than this). I find it hard to believe that this was made by the same guy who did Top Gun and Crimson Tide. Don't get a popcorn bucket for this one, get an air sickness bag.

Though advertised as a 'film' (i.e. theater movie) in the TV guide, IMDb confirmed the obvious signs of a TV movie. Things I thought were cheap: the use of the solo e.guitar to emphasize heroism (this effect is so cheap that refer to it as 'the p*rn guitar') and a man's choir to emphasize determination, or something. The wobbly camera in the a-drift (but stable) spaceship. I don't mean the shots done by the astronaut, those looked believable by its light-weight camera jerkyness. Things that needed a little imagination: The blowtorch, not only to imagine where the oxygen came from, but also how a soldering device can cut through metal (and give off sparks doing so). And why astronauts shift their weight from one leg to the other, moving around in a shuttle in orbit. Things that could have been worse: The animation of the tolling spacecraft, and how the crew experienced and handled it. The dialog - a lot of it sounded quite natural. There's no obligatory heat or animosity in discussions, no improbable loads of wit. Some cheesy stuff like the grinning bum in the end, or the surprise of the motorists on the improvised runway. Good for a chuckle though. Containing a lot of standard ingredients, but also showing skill (camera, lighting... no artwork however). Errors (out of laziness, time pressure?) and fair accuracy.

This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.

Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.

I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!

And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.

The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.

I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.

This movie, essentially a modern-day _Apollo 13_, was entertaining in the tradition of Jerry Bruckheimer films. Overall, I enjoyed it, though performances from Campbell and Brewster were fairly flat. In my opinion, Geoffrey Blake was the standout, playing a civilian filmmaker sent to document the launch of the corporate satellite. He created a character that was easy to identify with and entertaining to watch. Overall, this is light, low-budget entertainment; people in search of a rip-roaring blockbuster would do better to rent _Armageddon_ again. But as made-for-TV movies go, this one is a standout.

The plot was not good.

The special effects weren't.

The acting was... not very good at all.

Like others, I felt there were numerous holes in the plot that you could fly, well, a space shuttle through.

I thought the ending was rather unbelievable.

By the way guys, about the "blow torch in space".

Blow torches have their own supply of oxygen (Hence the name "Oxy-Acetylene torch"). Two hoses run from the torch: One to an acetylene bottle and one to an oxygen bottle.

So a "blow torch" would work just fine in space.