Black Hole, le Trou Noir

I knew from the trailers Sci-Fi channel was showing that this one would be totally insane. I watched anyway, figuring it would be at least good for some kitschy comedy, and a chance to see my home town of St. Louis get ripped. It did not disappoint (at being insane, that is).

A black hole is created artificially in a lab, but the black hole itself is not the only menace, as a strange electrical energy entity (that zaps people into oblivion) hitchhikes with it. This creature was actually kind of a creative plot device, since the movie really didn't seem to know what to do with the black hole other than devour stuff. Since there is a famous landmark in St. Louis, it's pretty obvious where the black hole goes for lunch (always moving along the ground in a 2-dimensional manner, by the way). As for the creature, it was utilized in some intriguing ways; but the explanation of its nature and intent was insufficiently developed, and could have been explored more.

Most everyone is at least somewhat familiar with basic scientific theory regarding black holes, and therefore will see a myriad of scientific absurdities, but if you view this silly nonsense without taking it seriously, it can be fun to watch. Toss disbelief into the black hole; or just play a game of "find the goofy science" as you watch.

The actors, given the weird script, really do approach the thing with urgency. When the scientist hero describes his quantum physics theories, you almost want to believe the offbeat premise of this movie. But then another bizarre thing happens and you're laughing hysterically again. There are the usual ploys and clichés: divorced dads, military that wants to use nukes, rogue scientists, TV news reporters doing play-by-play of destruction, etc.

Watch for loony amusement only. Science has been imploded in this "Black Hole."

well,this movie was pretty bad.bad acting,bad story,mediocre special effects,and bad dialogue.the two main actors,Kristy Swanson and Judd Nelson seemed to be phoning in their performances just for a pay check.the supporting cast wasn't great either.the story was silly,and very slow.and i'm no physicist,but i'm guessing a lot of the science was inaccurate.in some movies,that doesn't matter to me.for example f the movie is exciting or has sympathetic characters,or a good storyline.this movie has none of those.i just could not get into this movie,and really just waited for it to end.the ending was abrupt and anti climatic,which isn't really surprising since the whole movie was anti climatic.for me,The Black Hole is a 3/10

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.

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.