Exploding Sun
- टीवी फ़िल्म
- 2013
- 2 घं 54 मि
IMDb रेटिंग
3.8/10
1.5 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA historic space launch triggers a solar-storm event that could have cataclysmic repercussions for the planet if it isn't stopped in time - and time is running out.A historic space launch triggers a solar-storm event that could have cataclysmic repercussions for the planet if it isn't stopped in time - and time is running out.A historic space launch triggers a solar-storm event that could have cataclysmic repercussions for the planet if it isn't stopped in time - and time is running out.
Alex Weiner
- Reggie Walker
- (as Alexandre Weiner)
Mylène Dinh-Robic
- Denise Balaban
- (as Mylène Dinh Robic)
Marcela Pizarro
- Gloria
- (as Marcela Pizarro Minela)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
It's a C movie with a script seemingly developed by a small team of 13 year old boys, boys of average intelligence who enjoy sport more than science.
Every scene has some element of mind-numbing stupidity, be it dialog, acting, set (apparently Afghanistan exists in a Canadian quarry and is populated by a mix of Pakistanis and Palestinians, we know it's a hot country because there's about 3mm of sand on the floor)... so in every scene there's something to laugh about, shout "nooo!" or point at smiling.
The plot is incoherent, as are the motivations and actions of all the characters involved... it's a parade of poorly sketched fools.
I'm a fan of bad movies, Birdemic, Sharknado etc... this doesn't quite have the style or entertainment value of either of those two but I still found it funny.
If you choose to spend 3 hours of your life gaining pleasure from ripping apart a movie then you may enjoy this, otherwise stay well away my friends!
Every scene has some element of mind-numbing stupidity, be it dialog, acting, set (apparently Afghanistan exists in a Canadian quarry and is populated by a mix of Pakistanis and Palestinians, we know it's a hot country because there's about 3mm of sand on the floor)... so in every scene there's something to laugh about, shout "nooo!" or point at smiling.
The plot is incoherent, as are the motivations and actions of all the characters involved... it's a parade of poorly sketched fools.
I'm a fan of bad movies, Birdemic, Sharknado etc... this doesn't quite have the style or entertainment value of either of those two but I still found it funny.
If you choose to spend 3 hours of your life gaining pleasure from ripping apart a movie then you may enjoy this, otherwise stay well away my friends!
If anyone watches a TV disaster flick and expects anything but entertaining schlock, they need a reality check. Such movies are designed for two nights of brainless entertainment, not scientific accuracy and logic. If the viewer expects the writers and directors to adhere to strict science at the expense of excitement and suspense, seriously... do you realize what this is? It's not like anyone forced you to watch yet another disaster film.
Comparatively, this movie is considerably better than anything produced by Asylum. The characters were cliche but at least held true to their nature. The writing wasn't awful (we've seen awful writing, yes?). Okay, so the science isn't spot on (or even close). The purpose here is to keep the average viewer entertained and face it, the average viewer has very little knowledge of actual science.
The questions here are: was the story entertaining, was the filming and acting okay, was it boring or exciting? Expecting a disaster film to be cerebral is like watching a Saturday morning cartoon and giving it 2 stars for being childish. Let's not be goofy.
I enjoyed the film, despite the scientific inaccuracy, despite the illogical presentation, because I didn't go in with a, "I'm going to be as critical as I can be" attitude. I went in to watch a television disaster film, knowing exactly what this genre usually produces. I wasn't disappointed. It held its own, according to what is expected from such films. Perhaps some of these reviews themselves need a 1-star rating for "Excessively unrealistic expectations". I mean geeminy, what were you expecting when you started watching this? ;D
Comparatively, this movie is considerably better than anything produced by Asylum. The characters were cliche but at least held true to their nature. The writing wasn't awful (we've seen awful writing, yes?). Okay, so the science isn't spot on (or even close). The purpose here is to keep the average viewer entertained and face it, the average viewer has very little knowledge of actual science.
The questions here are: was the story entertaining, was the filming and acting okay, was it boring or exciting? Expecting a disaster film to be cerebral is like watching a Saturday morning cartoon and giving it 2 stars for being childish. Let's not be goofy.
I enjoyed the film, despite the scientific inaccuracy, despite the illogical presentation, because I didn't go in with a, "I'm going to be as critical as I can be" attitude. I went in to watch a television disaster film, knowing exactly what this genre usually produces. I wasn't disappointed. It held its own, according to what is expected from such films. Perhaps some of these reviews themselves need a 1-star rating for "Excessively unrealistic expectations". I mean geeminy, what were you expecting when you started watching this? ;D
Sci-fi is my favorite genre, but boy is it taking a beating lately. Even the big budget films seem to be incapable of getting the job done. Most of the other reviews pretty well cover everything. The opening sequences have a group of civilians on their first flight into space that looks more like a group on a vacation flight in a Lear jet. The pilot is whiny and controls the whole ship with a helicopter joy stick with shiny lights on it. Everything is down hill from there. This movie definitely takes the sci out of sci-fi. Only a frontal lobotomy will help with this department. The unfortunate truth is: that by the end I didn't care if they all died, except for possibly the Afghani girl who, well you know what happens. Hoped for better, but no joy.
Why can't the casting director (if this nonsense had one) pick the lead actors that can speak clearly, or at least don't have any speech impediments? I'm talking about Anthony Lemke. I don't know why his bottom lip sticks out, or his jaw, or why his tongue doesn't work. But I would have thought that the director would request another take when this guy mumbles his lines.
Perhaps he - Lemke - thinks it is "Brando-esque" to mumble, to be incoherent, but I don't. It is a pain.
So for those of you who actually want to understand the mumblings of this lead actor... get the subtitles!
Perhaps he - Lemke - thinks it is "Brando-esque" to mumble, to be incoherent, but I don't. It is a pain.
So for those of you who actually want to understand the mumblings of this lead actor... get the subtitles!
One point about science fiction movies, is to impress the viewer with science or technology that could once be real. But in this movie nothing makes sense about science. Not speaking about the bad and slow plot with sometimes terrible unreal action performances.
Just to name a view paradox: -they are close to the sun, but are communicating on video phone in real time. The signal would take at least 7 minutes between the sun and earth. (later they correctly state that the impact would only be seen 7 to 8 minutes later on earth.) -As the engines don't work and they float around the moon they experience g forces! In reality they would only feel 0 gravity on board because the gravitation of the moon and the acceleration of the ship would cancel each other out. Same like a space ship in orbit. -How comes that its always daylight in USA and Afghanistan at the same time? -When he is activating the bomb manually in space (0 bar airpresion) he would explode. -the sun is 330000 times bigger than the earth so an impact would we like a tear drop into the oceans. And most probably the space ship would melt long time before it would hit anything solid. At least I don't know anything that wouldn't at 6000 kelvin. Even Ta4HfC5 already melts at 4488 K.
Just to name a view paradox: -they are close to the sun, but are communicating on video phone in real time. The signal would take at least 7 minutes between the sun and earth. (later they correctly state that the impact would only be seen 7 to 8 minutes later on earth.) -As the engines don't work and they float around the moon they experience g forces! In reality they would only feel 0 gravity on board because the gravitation of the moon and the acceleration of the ship would cancel each other out. Same like a space ship in orbit. -How comes that its always daylight in USA and Afghanistan at the same time? -When he is activating the bomb manually in space (0 bar airpresion) he would explode. -the sun is 330000 times bigger than the earth so an impact would we like a tear drop into the oceans. And most probably the space ship would melt long time before it would hit anything solid. At least I don't know anything that wouldn't at 6000 kelvin. Even Ta4HfC5 already melts at 4488 K.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाDavid James Elliott plays an Air Force pilot. For 10 seasons from 1995-2005, he played Navy pilot turned lawyer in JAG (1995).
- गूफ़The control trailer for communications has a satellite receiver placed on its roof. However, this would be of little use, since the trailer remains inside a hanger and would not be able to pick up any satellite data.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें