Max Q

The plot was not good.

The special effects weren't.

The acting was... not very good at all.

Like others, I felt there were numerous holes in the plot that you could fly, well, a space shuttle through.

I thought the ending was rather unbelievable.

By the way guys, about the "blow torch in space".

Blow torches have their own supply of oxygen (Hence the name "Oxy-Acetylene torch"). Two hoses run from the torch: One to an acetylene bottle and one to an oxygen bottle.

So a "blow torch" would work just fine in space.

This movie was pointless. I can't even call it sci-fi, since that requires more from a movie than merely taking place in space. "Max Q" isn't even set in space for the entire movie. The story/plot is unoriginal, the cast isn't anything to write home about, although it would be strange with a top cast in a mediocre film... Furthermore, it's not particularly exciting or well-told. At least it's evenly balanced in a low quality sort of way, in that nothing or no one stands out. Everything is equally bland. I usually find some quality in "space flicks", even if it's just 90 minutes of semi-lame entertainment bordering on low-budget pathetic, but "Max Q" didn't even give me that satisfaction. All in all , a complete waste of time.

This movie, essentially a modern-day _Apollo 13_, was entertaining in the tradition of Jerry Bruckheimer films. Overall, I enjoyed it, though performances from Campbell and Brewster were fairly flat. In my opinion, Geoffrey Blake was the standout, playing a civilian filmmaker sent to document the launch of the corporate satellite. He created a character that was easy to identify with and entertaining to watch. Overall, this is light, low-budget entertainment; people in search of a rip-roaring blockbuster would do better to rent _Armageddon_ again. But as made-for-TV movies go, this one is a standout.

With knowledge of NASA and the space shuttle, I have to say that this movie was DREADFUL. It was slapped together in under two months with hardly any research and had even less accuracy than Armageddon. I find it shocking that they were actually able to land an astronaut (who I will not name) as technical advisor and still be so far-fetched. The acting was horrific, the special effects looked like something out of an FAA crash animation video, and some of the concepts (assigning a news reporter to the mission a day before launch, using a blow torch in space, and landing the space shuttle on an L.A. highway) are too far-fetched even for a 70's James Bond (Moonraker seemed more real than this). I find it hard to believe that this was made by the same guy who did Top Gun and Crimson Tide. Don't get a popcorn bucket for this one, get an air sickness bag.

I pity the cast of this film.

Apparently Jerry Too-Much-Testosterone Bruckheimer didn't get enough space action with Armageddon so he had to slap this piece of crap together in about two months and throw it into an empty timeslot on ABC for god knows what reason. This abomination is highly inaccurate, badly written, and a complete insult to anyone who knows anything about flying or the space program. NASA deciding the day before launch to send a reporter into space.......HA! Even the Russians wouldn't do that. And using a blowtorch in space? Who was their tech advisor, Baghdad Bob?

But aside from the technical neurosis, the film comes across as a cheap attempt at a modern day Apollo 13 and a tax shelter (probably left-over money from Armageddon, since they didn't hire real writers for that either). All in all, don't bother with this one. If you want a good modern space movie, check out Space Cowboys. At least that one didn't have you groaning every five seconds like this one did.