Genres

Visitors Review

John Wilson 2012-05-24 11:02:06

Wow - Just for Kelly Reilly

I don't remember the original, so the plot was all new to me. It mayhave looked like it was derivative of other stories, but that alldepends on which one came first.Unlike more modern programmes that have 2 - 3 stories running in themthis one was an old fashioned Sci Fi story from the golden age of SciFi when the PC was nowt but Sci Fi itself, and Aliens were all badguys, so the Beeb had to try and Jazz it up a bit with the addition ofa spy sub plot, but hey it didn't really detract from the story toomuch.If you like your Sci Fi old school then this is for you, but if youwant multi layered complex story lines move on.The truth of the matter is that the acting was brilliant, and inparticular the beautiful Miss Reilly kept this old sci fi buff watchingthrough to the end. Well worth the watch. 10 out of 10 for MissReilly(she is a stunner).

sisyphus-imdb 2012-05-23 19:02:49

Vapid remake.

This pointless remake of the 1961 classic adds nothing to the original.Apparently "updated" to 1970's production (and score), 80's graphicsand the occasional 90's technical term, it doesn't even qualify as anhomage to the era.The characters have no depth and less credibility. The one dimensionaldepiction of Dawnay (Jane Asher) blindly pursuing the holy grail ofgenetics is an affront to anyone who has ever entered a laboratory. Theessence of the scientific method is to question everything, and noscientist with more than half a brain would take the course of thoseportrayed here. Even the initially gullible Hardy (John Fleming) isunrealistically slow to develop a conscience and realise the potentialissues raised by his actions. This is the kind of portrayal that getsscientists a bad name.Equally insulting are the scenes that portray the destruction ofmonitors and keyboards as integral to the destruction of the aliencomputer. How many people are actually stupid enough to believe thisnowadays? Regardless of familiarity with the original version, the plotis 100% predictable from the first few minutes right up until the lastfive. In that last five minutes is the most dramatic plot point of theentire film. The turning of the creature against its creator, theexamination of humanity vs. the alien, the very human moral dilemmas,freedom and pre-destination, all take place in under two minutes. Thereis no examination of the conflicts faced by the creature or theirresolution. (It feels suspiciously as if there was a large edit here.)Similarly, throughout the film any opportunity to explore morality, therole of technology, or cloning is passed by. According to Richard Fell(BBC4 web-site), one of the key questions addressed is "How complexdoes a computer have to be before we consider it to have some kind ofhuman qualities?". This has been under constant examination since 1950,and Alan Turing's paper "Computing machinery and intelligence"(available on-line). This adaptation adds absolutely nothing to thedebate, even failing to acknowledge that for over twenty years therehas been a growing opinion that it doesn't actually matter.Sadly the film isn't even bad enough to be amusing.If you're interested in the ideas of the film then read Crichton'soriginal "Andromeda Strain", although the plot of this version isactually closer to Sagan's "Contact" (more investigative, and perhapseven more worthy than Crichton's). {Edit: Oops. That should have been"the original 'A for Andromeda' by Hoyle/Elliot", of course. Not"Andromeda Strain".}

chriscoates 2012-05-23 01:37:22

Flawed, but intelligent and enjoyable

This is a fine example of British science-fiction. Necessarily wordydue to its low-budget, successful British SF has always had to rely onstrong concepts, strong writing and carefully created atmosphere. Inthe same vain as Quatermass and Dr Who much of the action consists ofpeople in a room talking about abstracts. Some will be bored to tears;but those with an imagination may find this story of predeterminism vspersonal will and morality very engaging. If there's a flaw then it'sthat some of the, very real, science is over-simplified to anunbelievable degree. An audience is able to accept the idea of an alientransmission containing instructions on how to make a malevolentsupercomputer. But the idea that these scientists are also experts ingenetic engineering and quickly have all of the expertise and equipmentnecessary for their task stretches credibility too far. It's a shamebecause these problems could have been easily avoided with a littlemore creativity. At heart though this is a good, old-fashioned,morality play with some impressive performances and a rareintelligence.

gray4 2012-05-22 09:28:42

What a load of rubbish!

This is a totally pointless remake of the 40 year old TV series thatlaunched Julie Christie. No such luck this time round. The film openswith a completely irrelevant rock-climbing scene and then deteriorates.There is just enough to hold some interest in the early scenes, set inan unrealistically empty government research laboratory, with just fourscientists - evidence of BBC cost-cutting? All the cash seems to havegone on one special effect.But when the military appear, the whole storyline collapses. Even theacting is wooden, with good actors such as Jane Asher and Tom Hardyunable to rise above the poor material they have to perform with. Therisible debates - good scientist against wicked soldier, human againstalien, risk-taking biologist against cautious computer scientist - arecouched in the crude terms of a 1950s American B-movie. Before the end- no spoilers but utterly predictable - the only question I'm left withis "why am I wasting my time watching this rubbish?"