Solar Crisis

What was Charlton Heston thinking when he signed up for this disaster?? Alright, I'll be fair. I rented Solar Crisis (translation: wasted a buck) with an open mind. It had an interesting plot, so it seemed, and some famous guys. So there must be something there. Man oh man was I wrong. I realized that with the opening scene in which cheap subtitles scrolled across the screen, describing the Impeding Doom of Earth. To make matters worse, a voice-over further insulted my intelligence by reading the words too. Gee, since I was dumb enough to rent the film, they must figure I can't read either. Then came the real blow: The weak, weak acting (usually showcased by laughably over-dramatic monologues) coupled with the bland, bland writing, strewn together with the lousy, lousy soundtrack make for one nose-wrinkling mess. Dr. Haas was especially bad, as was the ship's commander whose name escapes me. We are treated to such memorable lines as: "Our only security blanket out there is ourselves" and the immortal "I'm the only one who can ever free you!" Please. Free me, for the love of God.

Alright first off: this is not a great film, it is not even a particularly good film, but I have seen many that were much worse. I am curious as to who the director was who ducked out on this one and turned it over to Alan Smithee (for those not in the know: Alan Smithee is a name that the DGA assigns to films who's directors do not want to admit a connection to for some reason, artistic of otherwise.)

Some of the performances were a little flat, although Jack Palance was as eccentrically off beat as usual. That alone always gives any film a one point boost. Peter Boyle was just as underplayed a villain as usual, not getting his hands dirty. But there was a lot of real tension in the film. In anyone was over the top it was Dorian Harewood, and I suspect that was because of bad direction. I suspect with a better director, budget and script this could have been a much better film. I still enjoyed it though. Just one of my little quirks I guess.

Here's the set up. Earth is going to be half fried by a giant flare the sun is getting ready to shoot off. A ship is sent to drop a bomb on the sun to make the flare go off away from Earth.

Not a bad premise, and the film has a lot going for it. But...

The problem is with a subplot. Half the population is in danger of being fried to death, and someone on Earth wants the mission to fail.

Why?

Otherwise there are great special effects, a few tense scenes with real conflict. If they had edited out that sub plot, it would be a much better film.

Still recommended for science fiction / space buffs. Worth a look.

Well, Solar Crisis really isn't all that bad. It has the look and feel of an "A" movie that didn't quite make it. It's also a little too long for what it has to offer. Ninety minutes as opposed to one hundred fifteen minutes would have given it more movement, and impact. Yet whenever we get the opportunity to see Charlton Heston, Jack Palance, and Peter Boyle in the same film, there is going to be some fun. I like the premise of the film, and much of its execution. Though it never comes together in a compelling package, it is definitely a film that a Sci Fi fan should see at least once. I think the climax is moving, and very well done.

There is a healthy dose of Japanese mindset behind the scenes, that seems to create some differences of perception of what works in science fiction. The Japanese have an intriguing cultural perception of reality, and I love many of their films. But that sagacity does not seem to extend fully into "space" films. I don't think they have never quite exceeded their heritage of gimmicky, "comic book" science fiction movies.

Solar Crisis has excellent actors, sustained suspense,lots of drama, and reasonable action. But it tries to be too much, too broad, and just never quite reaches its goal.

This is one of my favorite movies. I saw the Japanese subtitled version known as 2050. I saw Solar Crisis years later. There are significant differences between the two. 2050 is more artistic. I well up with tears when watching some scenes. I am particularly touched when Corin Nemec is found by Charlton Heston at the seaside. The music and waves are quite touching as they try to reach Corin's father on the daring mission to the sun.

The print of the 2050 is much darker visually than Solar Crisis. But the overall impression of 2050 has more cinematic impact. The music is used to greater effect. The heroine is Alex Knopf, a biogene logician. Her inner turmoil as a biologically enhanced organism is aggravated by being programmed to end the mission to the sun.

A key scene in the movie is when they must stop a premature countdown of a bomb. It has all the hallmarks of any failsafe situation where humans find themselves at the mercy of their technology. All is almost lost until the computer is supplied with proper voice authorization to halt the detonation.

Another is when a crewmember volunteers to fix a mission critical system that will surely result in his death to save the mission. I found this scene to be riveting. This was a character that I cared about. He is Joe Anyman. But the selflessness of his nobility saves the day for the rest of us.

The special effects are top notch. The orbital platform Skytown. The mission to the sun is staged with key shots of loading Freddie The antimatter bomb onto the main space vehicle. Paul Williams is the voice of Freddie and provides an example of a virtual agent interface to a bomb that will trigger a solar flare. The OS of the bomb relates its functioning to how a person would feel. For example annihilation events are felt by Freddie. He feels ill until magnetic suspension fields are corrected to optimize containment of the antimatter.

All in all I like the execution of the movie. I found it very believable. With touches of a technologically jaundiced eye at the fallibility of computer software and hardware. And imagery that makes one appreciate the fragility of our blue jewel in the cosmos. A heartwarmer.