Supernova

I do believe that I watched this movie some time back in the early 2000s, but it is not a movie that have left much of an impression with me back then, because I don't really recall anything from it, aside from it having James Spader on the cast list.

I got the chance to sit down and revisit "Supernova" now in 2017 and decided to watch it again, and did of course grab the opportunity as it arose. When I was younger I wasn't much of a sci-fi fan, aside from loving "Star Wars", but as I have grown older I have come to find enjoyment in the sci-fi genre as well.

I must admit that I was more than genuinely excited to see Angela Bassett being on the cast list too, because I have come to enjoy her work over the years, and she is actually a very talented actress. The cast list also had Lou Diamond Phillips and Robert Forster playing in the movie, so there were some familiar faces for sure. Now, I have never been much fan of James Spader, but I must admit that he was really well-cast for this movie and he performed very well. However, I can't help but sit and think that James Spader sounds so much like a space-Batman as he talks throughout the course of "Supernova".

Taking into consideration that the movie is from 2000, then I will say that the special effects, CGI and visual effects are actually still quite good even by today's standards. And having convincing CGI and proper effects is alpha and omega for a sci-fi movie to have the proper punch to it. And the visual effects team here really managed to perform quite well. The robot, however, well at least it served its purpose, but its movement were so weird, rigid and jerky that it looked comical. The designs of the space vessels were also quite interesting and it looked very realistic - well, as far as sci-fi takes realism, of course.

"Supernova" picks up pace very early on and throws the audience right into the thrill and excitement of the Space adventure. Writers William Malone, Daniel Chuba and David C. Wilson really had managed to create something very compelling and thrilling, while director Walter Hill brought the script onto the screen quite nicely and it made for a very entertaining movie indeed.

There was a great atmosphere to the movie, and it was a very believable setting that they managed to create. And that applied to both the deep space scenes and also all the scenes aboard the spacecraft.

This movie makes good use of a mixture between action, thrills, storytelling and character development. So there definitely is something for just about everyone here.

"Supernova" was actually a much better movie than I initially remember it, so I can honestly say that it is a movie that is well-worth taking the time to watch, especially if you enjoy sci-fi movies that fall into the thriller/horror genre.

Ridiculous "loud & lazy" sci-fi thriller that makes ample use of Robin Tunney's willingness to disrobe but has little time for things like logic and characterization. The plot is that a search and rescue ship in deep space answers a distress beacon. For their trouble, they get Peter Facinelli. Oversexed, overly derivative mess of a film offers nothing you haven't seen before and better. Hell, just a few years before this was Event Horizon, with a very similar plot but a much better movie. A dark-haired and particularly buff James Spader gives the only performance worth mentioning with a straight face. How about that laugh-inducing ending? You wouldn't think a movie that has the names of both Francis Ford Coppola and Walter Hill attached to it could be this bad but it just goes to show I guess.

Supernova is legendary for is production problems and poor critical reception. However, the end result is an entertaining action sci-fi film which fails to live down to its absurdly low expectations and also fails to live up to its very high potential. in other words, it's better than most people say, and nowhere near as good as it should have been.

A rescue ship manned by several paramedics, a hot shot pilot just out of a drug rehab, and emergency personnel, patrols the frontier of human exploration, serving mining colonies, etc, far from earth's solar system. Just as we are learning the personalities in the film, and just as they are starting to become interesting, a distress call is picked up and the ship responds. Enigmatically, the distress call seems to have come from somebody out of the chief medical officer's (Angela Bassett) past, with a lot of problems. "The patient", however, is just the beginning of the mystery, as a strange object with the potential power to destroy the known universe is eventually found.

The first problem with the film is that it bites off much more than it can chew - developing compelling characters, a very interesting, detailed and original plot, excellent special effects and some great sets, but never permitting any of them to grow, expand or become fully realized. The second problem is, I suspect, the fault of studio mismanagement. Rather than contributing to the film, the cinematography and editing are so poor that they, in fact, distract and detract. The production problems - switching directors, mismanagement by the sponsoring studio, inartistic and uninspired re-shooting and re-editing - suggest a couple of simple explanations. There are so many wipes and fades in the second half of the film that I began to wonder whether they were supposed to signify something (such as the passage of time, switching of dimensions, etc) which the audience was not privy to.

Contrary to popular belief, this film had a great deal of potential, however, it would have made a much better TV mini-series or even a premise for a TV series than a cinema release. Why? Because the story and especially the characters needed a lot more time and a lot less editing to develop properly.

The story line can be seen as totally inept or quite brilliant. Though I am no fan of black-box pseudoscience explanations such as "9th dimensional matter", I prefer the 'quite brilliant' interpretation. If you think a lot about what goes on in this film, you can easily link together what seems to be a mess of loose ends and detached subplots and really 'get' what the story is meant to convey. Facinelli's character can be seen as a guardian or simply a power-addict; Spader's former drug addiction can make his attempt at heroism seem a resolution of his inner demons; his relationship with Bassett can be seen as the resolution of the entire set of problems the film poses. However, realizing all of this requires more though and energy than the film itself suggests, and depicting it so that it could have been easily deciphered by the audience would have required at least a few more hours than the film was allowed.

The acting is actually quite good. Angela Bassett is, as usual, excellent, and Peter Facinelli and Wilson Cruz are both worth watching. James Spader's often maligned performance is perfect for the character he is playing - a former drug addict on a quest for redemption. I generally do not like Spader's work very much (there are already too many Clint Eastwood and Robert Downey types in the acting world today), but I do respect his talent. It is unfortunate that the characters were not permitted to develop as they should have, and though the reasons why are almost certainly the lack of decisive directorial control and the studio's post-production mistreatment of the film, this does not excuse Walter Hill from partial responsibility. Hill, after all, used some of the same signature structural plot devices in the over-rated Aliens and the weak but under-rated Alien3 - both of which were better films. the problem with the direction here is, predictably, simply one of consistency. Two to three directors and who knows how many editing and post-production teams simply can not make a perfectly coherent artistic vision.

Simply put, if you're into Sci-Fi, and don't mind films which favor the "fi" part of the phrase over the "sci", then you might just find yourself quite entertained. If you're no a sci-fi fan and you like action films, you might make it through Supernova. But, if you're not a sci-fi fan and your looking for something important, artistic and thoughtful, you should avoid this film like the plague.

It's not the greatest movie ever, no doubt. But it's not bad. As far as Science Fiction movies go, this is definitely one of the better ones, maybe the best in recent memory. It's science was dead on, having a NASA employee as a technical adviser certainly shows. As for the story, it's not out of the realm of science fiction, which is no more and no less than can really be expected. It keeps it's pace well and doesn't slow down to wax philosophic like a cheesy 50's Sci-Fi would have done. The plot progresses logically and doesn't tend to jump around (a thing that I HATE in a movie). It kept me entertained, which is more than I can say for a lot of movies today.

This movie has a lot of interesting sci-fi elements. It's philosophical, atmospheric, sensual. The acting by Spader and Basset is excellent, as is their characterizations and chemistry.

I've read a few reviews that claim this movie is bad, but they don't state any compelling reasons why it's "so bad."

Fans of sci-fi will enjoy this. Those who aren't fans, no one here cares about your opinion.