Ataque Solar

Although I had to suspend disbelief a lot in this, it was worth it because the underlying story has heart and excitement. The production values are low and the scientific merit is questionable at best; but the screenplay is impressively ambitious in scope. And although the budget was extremely limited, some of submarine, fighter plane, and nuclear CGI effects came off quite well.

This definitely kept me entertained and I think it's quite underrated. Fans of sci-fi disaster films like Armageddon will enjoy this if they can see past the extreme lack of polish, into the endearing earnestness and ambition that lies beneath.

I saw this last night and kept watching as there was nothing else on that was better. The premise of the movie was cool. Big solar storm ignites the atmosphere and has the potential of instantly wiping out life on Earth. However, the dialogue in the movie was horrible. The script was lacking emotion and intensity. The dialogue could have been so much better. The acting was alright given the bad dialogue. Louis Gosset, Jr. plays the president but has a small role in the movie overall. The score was horrible. The movie needed more intense music and more emotive dialogue. This movie lacked in intensity and would have benefited greatly from it. Unfortunately, the movie was pretty much on par with most small budget films made in Canada.

Solar Attack is about a large coronal mass ejection (CME) from the sun that threatens to ignite the atmosphere and kill everyone. The president must try and make the right decision and he only has one chance. The scientists and advisors are split, but the president errs on the side of caution and authorizes some dangerous operations. While this film deals with a lesser known extinction level event, the science is still dubious as presented. For the most part, the performances aren't convincing and seems rushed. I think this has more to do with the directing rather than the acting. Dialog is common with little snap. I doubt that even big name actors could have pulled this out of the C+ range. Special effects were nonspecific, general, and unrealistic.

If I could have given this a half star I would have. We watch SyFy movies for laughs. We enjoy the bad acting, the awful special effects, the ridiculous-ness of it all. While this definitely had the bad acting (aside from Louis Gossett, Jr. he was fine for the couple of minutes he was in it...but why, Louis, why?) it had none of the fun. There was a lot of conversation, a lot of 'science', but no gratuitous violence that we've come to love from the SyFy movies, none of the laughs, just a bunch of serious talking about the why's of it all. I don't care, I just want to watch someones arm come off or some silly line I can quote afterwards. Skip it. Watch Megasnake or Frankenfish for some good quality cheese. This is boring monotony. The only fun we had was when they mentioned how big something was and we compared whatever it was to the size of Joanne Kelly's distractingly large upper lip. We fast forwarded the last 20 minutes to see the predictable ending and regretted wasting a Friday night on this one.

Coronal mass ejections from the Sun are the gimmick the makers of this film use to get you in front of the TV (or worse, inside a theater where you may have paid to see it).

Extinction level events are the hack screenwriter's new refuge from the demands of serious drama and this is no different - except that coronal mass ejections are much less plausible as an extinction-level event than, say, impact by a large asteroid.

Apart from this most obvious flaw in the movie, we're also expected to believe that these coronal mass ejections somehow keep satellites from burning up on re-entry, so they can take out streets full of people (for example, if the Soviet spy satellite which scattered itself all over the Yukon Territory back in the late 1970s had done so over downtown Detroit instead, the carnage could have been impressive).

In this film, methane (and not carbon dioxide) is contaminating the upper atmosphere. Pockets of methane unaccountably ignite, causing atmospheric chaos for no real reason. And according to this movie, we can also dispense with all the money we're spending on ballistic missile defense - F-15 fighter planes can handle terminal stage ballistic intercepts just fine. Has Boeing been holding out on us?

I keep harping on the problems created by stupidity in plot details because they damage willing suspension of disbelief by the audience and make the movie hard to enjoy. The factual errors in the plot of "Solar Strike" aren't points on which reasonable men of science can disagree, they're a series of clinkers which anyone who passed high school chemistry (or even "general science") will have trouble setting aside in order to enjoy the film.

And the film needs the help. We enjoy "Society of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "Van Helsing" despite the campy Victorian "science" because the actors and screenwriters do a good job and the story recruits the audience as a willing conspirator.

The writers and director don't get Lou Gossett and the other "name" actors close enough to the goal to score. Even Lou Gossett can't sound intelligent when the lines he has to deliver are palpably foolish. There's nothing in this plot, the characterizations, or the dialogue to entertain.

This is a dismal, dismal, dismal waste of the viewer's time. You have to wonder if Syfy Network shows garbage like this because of a special dumb movie discount or something.