Genres

Visitors Review

BPW1221 2012-05-21 23:12:26

My it was a strain wasn't it....

Oh the humanity..... As I watched the movie a few things quickly jumped into my head and Iknew I'd be in for a long night.1) No four star general would ever deal with tactical matters like that2) What are the odds that an Asian, a Af-Am, a hottie woman, and, tofind out later, a gay man, would find themselves together. Ahh, theproducers being subject to political correctness 3) The second theymentioned something about mining the ocean's floor I knew there wouldbe some stupid eco-tie in.What I really don't understand is why can any of the people involved inthis nonsense would have signed up for it. I thought about ChristaMiller. Given her hubby's success on Scrubs or the residuals she getsfrom the Drew Carey Show, I wouldn't think she would need the money.A&E (This was neither art nor entertainment by the way) surely couldhave seen how this would turn out. I find it even more ironic that theymade up a bunch of DVDs to sell. I'd sure love to know how many ofthese things get destroyed after they sit gathering dust in awarehouse.Producers, screenwriters... here's a suggestion, when looking forsomething to make, try to stick with the original script and notrunning off on stupid tangents or political correctness thinking youare adapting it for today's world.This was a strain all right....

codefool 2012-05-21 12:04:11

Ugh.

"The Andromeda Strain" was the first "adult" novel I read as a child(at nine) and had a profound impact on me, and probably had a greatdeal to do with my getting involved in science, computers, and writing.The book is an absolute masterpiece - even with the deus ex machinaending.The adaptation of the novel to film was almost direct as the characterinteractions and back story were so well crafted by Mr. Crichton thatno modification to them were necessary. It almost seemed the castingfor the film was in his mind as he was writing the novel. Aside fromthe use of lasers in the film's climax rather than tranquilizer darts(which makes less sense, actually. I mean, you use lasers to cutthings, not put animals to sleep) the story was left totally intact -step by step and scene by scene. When the filmmaker has to do verylittle to translate the text to screenplay, then the author has done anexcellent job in creating visual clarity in the text.This shoddy remake is an insult, quite frankly. The producers had to"create" enough new material to fill time for a mini-series so theychanged almost everything. While in the movie much was spent explaining"why" the odd-man hypothesis and the nuclear self-destruct was soimportant, in this remake they are glossed over. Even the great revealon why the nuclear option would be ineffective was glossed over. Theproducers have taken out what made TAS so wonderful and replaced itwith the dysfunctional yet boring back stories for the characters,which have nothing to do with inciting event of the story. Boring,boring, boring. No, wait, it's worse - it's aggravating.Rather than journey with the scientists in doing their research, theysip coffee while they tell the omnipotent "computer" to performcomprehensive batteries of tests, then analyze and report results. Iwas getting the impression that the scientists could have done this"work" pool-side.There is no tension. There is no mystery. There is no craft. Theproducers have completely diluted what Crichton had created soperfectly.All in all, a very forgettable effort. It's interesting how they toutedpre-orders for the DVD during the show. No thanks. In protest I'm goingto order the original movie on DVD right now. I owe Mr. Crichton atleast that.

Terry Bonner 2012-05-20 18:25:03

Bitterly Disappointing!

Like so many commentators here, I am a great fan of the classic 1971movie starring the late, great Arthur Hill. Likewise I remember fondlymy reading of the taunt, engaging Michael Crichton novel when it waspublished in 1969. Both of these masterpieces captured my imaginationas a young man, and they were formative in my future professionalchoice to pursue a career in medicine.Thank God I was spared the disappointment of this shallow, vapid anddisastrous waste of electrons currently being hyped by A&E.One would think that Ridley Scott's involvement in the project, if forno other reason than the preservation of his artistic reputation andthe lucrative franchise derived from that reputation, alone would haveinsured higher production values and a better screenplay more true tothe spirit of Crichton's original plot. The 1971 Nelson Giddingscreenplay took great pains to reproduce Crichton's tense chronology,thereby creating an escalating sense of urgency and a pinpoint focus onthe unfolding narrative of investigation leading inevitably todiscovery. The minimalist characters were secondary to the narrative,so that the real protagonist of the drama became scientific methoditself.The Robert Schenkkan screenplay, by contrast, is simply anotherpredictable Hollywood soap opera, where the portrayal of character isparamount to all narrative substance and the gimmickry of specialeffects is substituted for continuity.As inadequate as the screenplay proves to be, the casting is far worse.The late, great Arthur Hill's gravitas and dignity makes the characterof Jeremy Stone credible. He is a man of reason and science whose soleconcern is the Wildfire mission. There is no need for cheesy loveinterests or superfluous vignettes from his personal life. And it isneither in his nature nor is it integral to his mission to comporthimself like some second-rate action hero.The same does not obtain for Benjamin Bratt. One gets the distinctimpression that Bratt serves the same purpose as a porcelainreproduction of Michelangelo's David. He is there merely to approximatethe beauty and grace of some original masterpiece, but it is quiteobvious he is only a fragile, scaled-back and ultimately disposablerendition of something, somewhere, which is real and substantial.I won't even mention Ricky Schroder, who manages to completelyeviscerate and dishonor the original James Olson role. Schroder is noactor, as even the most die-hard fans of NYPD BLUE will admit, but inthis role he is particularly embarrassing. Whereas Olson's character isan irreverent and slightly impetuous intellectual, Schroder's characteris simply an inarticulate smart ass who seems completely unsuited foreither the medical profession or the military service.The contrast between the great character actor Ramon Bieri and thecomparably great character actor Andre Braugher is equallyunsatisfactory. Braugher's lines are simplistic and his roleone-dimensional, so that no amount of the talent and energy he bringsto the part is able to compensate for the screenplay's deficiencies.I suppose that times change. In 1971 the public still adored itsscientific establishment. We believed in the NASA "can-do attitude"which got us to the moon and promised an eventual answer to most of themost pressing human problems through the application of scientificmethod.The public malaise and paranoia brought on by Watergate and the CIAscandals of the 70s were still ahead of us then.But, in watching this dismal remake of ANDROMEDA last night with mytwenty-four year old son, I was struck by the depths to which publicconfidence in our institutions and in science itself has sunk. TheRobert Schenkkan view of the world is bleak and cynical andpessimistic. He neither respects science nor makes any effort to groundhis narrative in scientific knowledge. Rather, he substitutessimplistic myth-making for scientific method, which was one of my mostvehement criticisms of the screenplays he wrote for STAR TREK: TNG.I will not go into the non sequiturs emanating from the plot ofANDROMEDA 2008. There is no reasonable explanation for the digressionsinto black holes, vent mining, nanotechnology or any of the numerousred herrings erupting from the scatterbrained script. And the fact thatCrichton's original premise -- that Wildfire was ultimatelyunsuccessful in its primary task of managing the epidemic -- wascompletely ignored by the remake is particularly disturbing. Instead weare presented with the Deus Ex Machina of a last-minute human solutionwhich is about as plausible (and as morally edifying) as Tesladeath-rays.The central premise of the THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN is that mankind'scommission is to understand Nature, not manipulate it. This iscompletely lost in the remake, rendering it soulless and morally void.This is what we have become in 2008, a nation of arrested adolescentswho seem to believe that the answers to the most vexing problems facingus will come through bullying bluster and shoot-em-up "whoopass", muchas in a video game.Crichton and Gidding celebrated the dogged, cerebral and ploddingeffort to understand how the Universe works. Robert Schenkkan refocusedthis noble effort and devolved it into yet another arrogant tale ofhuman hubris and adolescent wish fulfillment, framed by the unbearableoppression of institutional authority.And the great Ridley Scott prostituted his good name to put hisimprimatur on the effort.Everyone involved in this Hollywood offal deserves censure.

PlaygroundLegend 2012-05-20 14:57:59

I liked it

I watch movies to be entertained. I have never understood people whopick apart every minute detail of a flick, obsessing over details, andin general missing the big picture. I never notice continuity errors,and other flaws. Who cares? I'm talking about the kind that you reallyhave to strain to find. I was entertained by this remake. I have indeed seen the original andam now tempted to go back and watch it again. But I don't remember muchat all about it and what I do recall is that it wasn't very memorable.If it doesn't stand in my mind, it must not have been great. Butperhaps I'm being unfair to it and need to watch again. I think this is a movie that benefits greatly from modern technology.Although made-for-TV, there was a big budget here, lots of bells andwhistles, computers, laboratories, fighter jets, and other hi-techgadgetry.There are moments of made-for-TV hokeyness, definitely. The acting isgood, but certainly not great. Benjamin Bratt was playing a scientist,sure, but he seemed wooden at times. Andre Braugher and Christa Miller,I thought, were good. I like gov't conspiracy type theories, so I likedthis. Reason being, events show that it's not that far from the truth.Not a big stretch. I thought Part I was gripping. I couldn't wait tosee Part II, but it seemed to bog down too much at times. I couldn'tfollow all aspects of the plot. It wasn't always clear to me what andwhy things were happening. The ending was very cool. I am probablyoffbase with my interpretations, but mine was that Andromeda wasmanufactured here, thus all the gov't secrecy about the disaster. Thisplot would be similar to the Outbreak movie, where again there is avirus being kept alive by a military faction led by Donald Sutherland.The astronaut who stores it at the end of Andromeda Strain punches inthe same number that the scientists decoded; it's almost like a lockernumber or something, on the international space station. The symbolrepresented something else, an organization, space lab, whatever.

DJMonline 2012-05-11 20:45:45

Errr

It wasn't great, wasn't good but wasn't that bad really. Put it thisway, I wanted to watch it until the end but there just wasn't the senseof suspense that the original film delivered...yes I know that youshouldn't compare the two directly but it's difficult not too as it isa remake of the same story, times have changed and there were 3 hoursto tell this version but it was still lacking, maybe it was too long?The performances are OK, not that the acting was bad as the cast werejust trying to do the best what they were working with which wasn'tstrong enough; the characters had plenty of time to try and establishthemselves but the script just didn't seem allow for that whereas inthe original film (the book is always a separate issue) though therewas less time you feel as though you understand who the characters areeven without verbose explanations? Mikael Solomon is known to be acapable director but again, it just seems though his vision was lackingand plodded along "by the numbers", knowing it was for TV an thereforeshot like it was for TV as opposed to bringing his cinematic talentthat he has...would have been interesting to see how Tony or RidleyScott would have handled it as opposed to producing? Anyway, only my 2cents as an opinion, it's worth a watch but for me not a repeatviewing.

jjoseph202 2012-05-11 02:20:59

Absolute drivel

If you've seen the "updated remakes" of Rollerball, The Time Machine,Planet of the Apes, The Invaders, War of the Worlds, The Haunting, Lostin Space, and Battlestar Galactica and liked them, if you like thecontrived derivative science-fictiony mini-series "Taken", then you'lllike this.The novel "Andromeda Strain" by Michael Chrichton could have beenupdated to 2008 U.S.A. without doing the overboard nonsense as clearlydemonstrated in the above-mentioned awful remakes.I'm sorry Michael Crichton is still alive to see this hack job of hismasterpiece.For example, in the remake of "The Haunting", there had to be lesbians.For what reason, who knows? But, in this remake, guess what?Unnecessary homosexuals! Even though it was obvious in the originalfilm that the female scientist could have been a lesbian IT WASIMMATERIAL TO THE PLOT, so wasn't explored! There was child abuse inthe new "The Haunting", too. Why? I dunno. Someone wanted to make apoint, I suppose, but failed utterly in doing so.In the "Lost in Space" remake, the relationship between Will Smith andhis father is dysfunctional as all get out. And UNNECESSARILY SO. Well,in this remake, the various characters (and there's too many of them)all have some sort of dysfunctional relationship with each other, withbaggage left over from previous run-ins, affairs, and incidents.The "Planet of the Apes" remake and "Time Machine" remake both didsomething stupid and unnecessary with time-space travel. So does this.Wanna not trust the government? Well, "The Taken" used that so much itwore a hole in it. And it's done to death in this remake, even though,in the original Andromeda Strain, it was done just right. Why? Becausein the original the government was running a con on the bio-scientistswho didn't figure it out until five minutes from the end. That wasenough government conspiracy stuff for me. I don't need anti-governmentparanoia thrown in my face, overdosing me, from the first minute of thefilm! And don't get me started on the moronic, pandering introductionof a sensation-seeking "journalist" (who wasn't in the original novelor film) that just mucks up the whole works. The producers apparentlywanted to base him on an Anderson Cooper-Geraldo Rivera hybrid. Likethat's a good model for a fabricated journalist.If you wanted to update the Andromeda Strain, why not do it by updatingthe computer tech, the genetics, the medical diagnosis tech, thebiochemistry knowledge/tech and the biowarfare tech? Those were all inthe original film, but could use updating to 2008 tech or evenenvisioning a bit beyond 2008 tech. It could have been done just likethe original Andromeda Strain, which put tech there that wasrecognizable and believable and understandable for a 1970 audience,but, where necessary, took it a step or two into the future.And why do we have to have a mix-and-matchone-from-column-A-and-one-from-column-B gender/race/sexual preferencescientific team? Because it's politically correct? Guess what? I justwatched the Phoenix Mars Lander team get interviewed and there was nosuch politically-motivated race/gender/sexual preference nonsense onthat team. That's because the Phoenix team was chosen on the basis ofknowledge, expertise, and ability, just like the the original AndromedaStrain scientific team.Sorry, Benjamin Bratt, Christa Miller, Eric McCormack, and RickShroder, I loved you in other stuff, but you sure got suckered intothis.I really hate "remakes" that are over-emo, angst-filled, self-involved,personality conflict bore-fests. Can you tell? Anyway, after watchingthis wretched thing, I put in my DVD of Andromeda Strain and actuallyenjoyed "The Andromeda Strain".

Shakor77 2012-05-10 03:47:52

Entertaining and exciting movie with good actors

I had not heard about the Andromeda Strain before watching this movieand as such came in with an open mind. And after watching the 2x2 hourminiseries I must say I thought it was a great movie.It has (several) good actors who do their parts right although the CGI"actor" could have been better. The movie also introduces anontological paradox which makes the movie a bit more mysterious andmakes me wanna know the origin of the movie antagonist.The story starts with a bang to slow down a little bit in the middleand then pick up for a final that seemed a bit to "easy" for my tastebut adds an interesting twist at the very end which gives me hope thatthere may be a sequel.A must watch of you enjoy apocalyptic, disaster movies with a big doseof technobabble.

tdgz-2 2012-05-09 23:08:47

Wow - is this bad

How can you take a classic and muddle it up? Constrained, poorly shot,blocked and directed. Not sure who approved this but the production ofthis was failed from first shot to last. With the exception of the art direction which it seems they spent moreof their time on then the script or the rest of it. I suspect much of this was about the deal to get it made more then theactual desire to make a real film.Where I would normally give the filmmaker a chance - this one fails onso many levels. The supporting cast is emotionless.The Effects by todays standards are Saturday morning. Please watch only if you are board or stuck in an snowed out airport.

ctomvelu-1 2012-05-08 08:12:43

Disappointing

Bad TV remake of the Michael Crichton novel is all over the map, withflat performances and way too much padding. Also has some of the worstspecial effects this side of all those horrible Sci-Fi Channel movies.A team of scientists (Ben Bratt and Christa Miller among them) istrying to figure out where a deadly new virus came from and how to stopit. The technology may look more up to date than that in the 1971Robert Wise movie, but the dialog is atrocious and the actors couldn'tbe duller, as well as unforgivably PC (the middle-aged white scientistsof the original have been replaced by a more youthful, handsome,bone-thin and mixed-race crew). Also, way too much time is spentwatching folks die or kill each other, and a whole subplot has areporter (the guy from "Will & Grace") dashing around the countryside,one step ahead of a seemingly endless army of assassins. What a waste.

dbarak 2012-05-07 23:12:58

Terrible movie

Although the acting, special effects and additions to the original plotwere terrible, I do have to give this movie "one thumb up, way up,about 75 feet." If you're one member of the unlucky masses unfortunateenough to have been "exposed" to the Andromeda Straing (2008 edition),then the thumb reference will make sense.The original film was wonderful, very true to the book, and thisversion could have been so much more if they hadn't added all the extraconspiracy aspects. I guess it was the only way they thought they couldexpand it to a two-night "event." The actors apparently really, reallyneeded the money.Unless you relish the prospects of suffering for hours, stay away.

disdressed12 2012-05-05 09:14:15

a bit more interesting than the 1971 version

i was hoping this remake of the 1971 movie was more interesting.and itwas,to a point.it's wasn't quite as slow.the general storyline id thesame,but some of the particulars have changed a bit.the have expendedsome scenes and there's a whole new subplot that ties in nicely beforethe movie wraps up.it is long though,at just under three hours.it is amade for TV mini series and it definitely has that made for TV feel toit.the acting is actually pretty good,though.there are some prettydodgy CG effects,though thankfully those are few and far between.thebest thing about the movie is,it's split into two parts,part one on thefirst disc and part two on the second disc.for me,"The AndromedaStrain" is a 6/10

Godstud 2012-05-05 08:05:25

See the original and skip it

I was really hopeful when I heard they did a remake of this as theoriginal is one of my all time favorite sci-fi movies. The originalmovie had a great cast and created great suspense. This movie fellflat.Warning Spoiler Alert:The beginning was OK and it looked like it would be a good movie,however about 1/3 or the way through the movie I noticed that theystarted changing things and trying to add a government conspiracy andsome worm-hole time-travel crap to the virus and it became absolutelystupid. The acting was average at best and it looks like they spent alltheir money making neat special effects that didn't add to the moviemuch. You really couldn't care less about any of the scientists andnone of them looked particularly knowledgeable. The original whilecertain parts of the special effects weren't superb, managed to createmuch more suspense without creating some sneaky government agency thatwas just plain DUMB. Let's not forget about the environmentalterrorists taking over some vent mining operation that had little ornothing to do with the main story. As usual they turned it into aGovernment vs People statement with a little Save the Planet crapthrown in there. In the end, 5 out of 10 seems remarkably high for amovie that stole 4 hours of my life... but I was mildly amused.

jread-5 2012-05-04 10:42:56

Danger Will Robinson!! Does not compute!!

Let's see: Some guys in the future have some kind of death organismthat they discover can only be controlled by the bacteria that livenear mineral-rich undersea vents. So they send a sample of the deadlystuff back in time to us, encased in a bucky-ball package that hasinstructions written on it in ASCII (not EBCDIC!) about how weshouldn't mine the vents and destroy the anti-virus bacteria. But somemilitary types have a satellite hanging around the worm hole to thefuture hoping to snag some kind of schrecklichkeit from space they canuse for germ warfare. Unfortunately, they snag the bucky-ball and breakit open, destroying all the instructions except the name of the stuffand a serial number. The satellite crashes, loosing the virus.Meanwhile, evil big businessmen are preparing to mine the vents. Sothere are two simultaneous conspiracies, one to use the virus forwarfare, the other to make sure the vents get mined. In the end: (1)scientists figure out how to use the vent-bacteria to kill the virus,thus saving the world for the moment; (2) the military conspiratorskill each other because some of them have a change of heart; (3) thePresident decides to go ahead with the vent-mining anyway (4) acigarette-smoking man saves a sample of the virus in the InternationalSpace Station so it will be available for the future.So...(1) Where did the virus come from in the first place? Did the Futureget it from us, the Past? But in the Past (our Present) the vents getmined and there would be no bacteria for the Future to use to suppressthe virus. So the Future could not be telling us how to combat thevirus.(2) Or, we are living in alternative past created when the Future sentthe sample back to our universe. In the alternative Future created byour alternative Past, the Future will receive the sample from us, butthey won't be able to control it and Time will end. But the real Futuredoesn't care, because they created an alternative Future (not theirs)that took the fall.(3) But wait....(4) And what about those highly favorable reviews posted here that wereposted days and sometimes weeks BEFORE the date the show was aired? Arewe living in an alternative universe in which the show is a turkeycaused by the messages posted by people in the Past sending messages tothe Present? If that singularity had not happened, would the show havebeen as great as they said it was?

mwells1 2012-05-03 22:13:42

What the pi$$ was that???

I do not know where to begin with my description of the sheer hatred Ihave for this movie. There were so many plot holes, so many unnecessary scenes/lines that Iwill not have time to mention. What kind of scientist fails to notice that a bacterium is unable tothrive in a low pH medium? Is that not a common test medium used inbasic labs? It took them 2 hours into the movie to figure this out. Andthen what happened to this discovery? They found out that those whosuffered from acidosis were immune to the disease, but then they didnothing with this info! And how convenient was it that the journalist'shandcuffs were plastic. Was he not confined by real hand cuffs in thecolonel's prison? Why did the military find it necessary to make iteasy for him to escape?And what was with the wave of bacteria? Seriously. For all you people that loved this movie: What is wrong with you? Youmust have the lowest standards known to man. Are you entertained byflies defecating on apples? Do you enjoy watching documentaries aboutthe War of 1812? I get the feeling that I could get a 9.0/10 ratingfrom you if I made a movie about my trip to the local hermaphroditicforeign car mechanic (actually, that sounds like a pretty good movie). I almost crapped myself in rage throughout this movie. Now I know howGeorge W. Bush was able to win two elections in this country.

Claudio Carvalho 2012-05-02 16:41:22

Why This Remake?

When the capsule of the Scoop Mission returns to Earth and lands in thesmall town of Piedmont, Utah, it brings a mutant living being and allthe population, except a crying baby and an old man with ulcer, dieswith clotted blood. A team of five scientists - the leader Dr. JeremyStone (Benjamin Bratt), Dr. Angela Noyce (Christa Miller), Dr. Tsi Chou(Daniel Dae Kim), Dr. Charlene Barton (Viola Davis) and Major BillKeane MD (Ricky Schroder) - are summoned and gathered together in thetop secret Wildfire facility. Fighting against time, they try tounderstand the reason why the old man and the baby survived andresearch an antidote to Andromeda, the ultimate biological weapon.I wrote the above summary – with the exceptions of the names of Dr.Stone's scientist's team – in my review of the original sci-fi classicof 1971. The great pacifist story is basically the same, only longerdue to updates in special effects and useless subplots with governmentconspiracies. I usually hate remakes, but sometimes I find reasonablesurprises; but I do not know the objective of this tiresome and totallyunnecessary remake. My vote is six.Title (Brazil): "O Enigma de Andrômeda" ("The Enigma of Andromeda")

boggan3 2012-05-01 21:01:49

This is as good as they come....

Just finished watching part one, and all i can say is that i cant waitto devour episode two. The acting is superb and they have spared noexpenses, the settings and stages are top notch and the cgi is up thereas well. Since I've only seen the first episode i cant really commenton the overall story since its only just starting to unfold and theoverall feeling is that there's lots of things that has yet to happen.All i can say is: This has so far been very enjoyable, had this beenreleased as a movie it still would have held me in its grasp, keep inmind that it would have been 3+ hours. If you are looking for some timeto kill and really want to treat yourself, go with this one. Just don'tdo as i have done, wait until you can watch all the episodes back toback instead. Coz now i have to wait for the next one to air and iREALLY want to know what happens next... and there you have it. I rateit 8.8/10.

blackasp98 2012-05-01 20:45:44

Andromeda strain

I have to say that this movie did a turn around pretty well. Althoughthe containment labs were somewhat more open than the original it didmanage to capture each characters opinions. The story was about thesame for plot such as keeping with Dr. Kim's epilepsy and the two insick bay without so much as a hint of the bacteria. As for the theoryof Andromeda coming from another time that was hard to swallow unlessin the book it also tells of this theory. But still all in all thisfilm was nice to see remade from the legendary ridley Scott, who'spossibly the most prolific director of our time. With works such asAlien, white squall, and the most famous of his directing Blade runner.And not to forget his Oscar winning movies gladiator and Black HawkDown. Doing a TV made movie is out of his area of expertise but seeingas his directing does really well in anything he does, i hope to seemore of his films hit TV soon again. The Andromeda strain is a classicno matter who says what, all i know is that this film was a goodattempt and it made me smile to see such diversity. But i did noticehow much homeland security is being mentioned in this film, a sort ofscrew you government, kind of thing to let the public know that thishomeland security thing is all crap. Just another way to dominate theAmerican people in any way possible. And this film just made homelandsecurity about as federal as fed ex, i don't think anybody wants it inAmerica and i don't think anybody wants to see bush any longer inoffice. The Andromeda strain was a good teaching tool about ourenvironment and how over mining can damage what we know as our ownsalvation. See what happens when the heads of state fool around withthings they know or want to know nothing about?. Excellent film.

ResoluteGrunt 2012-05-01 05:46:31

The Usual Hollywood Misinformation

Can't say I disagree with most of mark-4401's and similar reviewers'comments about a very mediocre B-movie intended for the usual lowestcommon denominator American mass TV audience -- with the exception ofsome of the comments about four-star generals and certain of today'smilitary practices, such as with regard to homeland security forces andthe National Guard (air and ground).As a life-long career Regular Army officer myself, I can say thatactive duty four-star generals (O-10) in the Regular forces today arenot many, but do include the Army Chief of Staff, Chief of NavalOperations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Air Force Chief ofStaff, and the Commandant of the Coast Guard. Army General ColinPowell, for example, wore four stars when he was Chairman of the JointChiefs of Staff; in that position he ran 24-7 the largest, mostsophisticated and most complex international high-tech organization onEarth, and beyond. (There are no five-star US generals ("General of theArmy") unless certain very major wartime situations demand one, such aswith Generals of the Army George C. Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, DwightD. Eisenhower and Omar Bradley during WW II, and, once so designated,they remain on active duty for life, regardless of subsequentendeavors.) A more appropriate rank for this movie's character "GenMancheck" would be a one-star (Brigadier General).Also, the enormous equipment demands in recent years of US militaryefforts in the CENTCOM area of responsibility (Iraq and Afghanistan),while also maintaining major and minor American military commitments inevery other corner of the globe, have dictated a tremendous amount ofshuffling throughout US military forces, including the use ofcamouflaged aircraft where you normally would not expect them to be.(You use whatever equipment is available, and try to hang on to stuffthat works best, regardless of what color it is.) Furthermore, underthe new command structure for Stateside homeland security forces,highly technical military response forces can be mobilized and on-siteanywhere in the US in extremely short order, but the process doesrequire national and state political decision-makers who are bothknowledgeable and involved to activate. A great deal of coordination(before, during and after) among a wide range of military and civilianagencies is required for such endeavors.There are many other errors in this movie, such as the fact that anyscientist or similar highly advanced technical expert serving on activeduty (such as the 'major') would be in proper uniform at all times,etc.. (Yes, the US military does have highly respected scientists ofalmost all stripe serving in uniform.) But, overall, such mistakes arecommon to Hollywood's very out-dated and always distorted view of theUS military and its people – a view which then gets naively adopted bythe public at large. Note that the movie even contains a number ofcommon-sense procedural errors that a real US ground force would nevermake – such as allowing a civilian to wander around unescorted on ahigh security forward base, if only for that civilian's personalsafety; US military activities and equipment are inherently quitedangerous.Hollywood does often employ military advisers on movie sets, but theseexperts always take a back seat to the "creative" intent of the moviedirector. It's a shame that more younger Americans today do not havefirst-hand experience with their highly advanced military forces andare therefore so dependent on Hollywood, video games and other sillymisinformation in the popular media for their "military facts".One-in-4,000 Americans (less than one-half of one percent of the USpopulation) with credible military experience is hardly sufficient tomaintain accurate knowledge and understanding among American citizens-- or among their popular media entities who broadcast suchmisinformation around the globe to America's friends and potentialadversaries alike. And it certainly doesn't help when the products ofthese "creative" efforts have at their root a malicious underminingpolitical intent. Everyone everywhere, it seems, loves to deride USsoldiers -- until they need them to save their skin.

hollerman-1 2012-04-29 06:51:45

Simply Awful

I wish I could give the remake of the Andromeda Strain a negativenumber rating of -10. This is one of the worst examples of sciencefiction that I have ever seen. Why do we feel today that a piece ofscience fiction must be bloody and fill the screen with needless goreand assorted body parts? What ever happened to SUSPENSE? The currentformula is nothing more than seeing how long it takes to gross out theaudience. There was too many random shootings in this so-called remake.The original version was a true classic piece of science fiction. Iwant movies to have good acting, plots filled with suspense instead ofpiles of bloody body parts, avoid bad PC-based government politicalcommentary, and other technology eye candy "grab" devices. The currentremake needs to be hidden, never to be seen again. Please, go back andwatch the original Andromeda Strain. Junk like this remake reminds usof how bad Hollywood and the entire TV and movie industry has gotten inrecent days. I wish an Andromeda Strain for bad movie remakesexisted.... We need it!

Phil6590 2012-04-28 15:26:07

Compelling and brilliant!

I first have to start off by saying that this film did not get thecredit it deserved. It was brilliant in the way it presented thescience of what epidemiology is, and I think the reason for the lowratings is that people just didn't understand it. Being a universitystudent studying Biology, I found it completely riveting! Being a fanof the 1995 movie Outbreak, I didn't think I would find another moviethat could compete with it, but this movie was intense! If you are ascience fiction fan that can appreciate higher level vocabulary,stunning visuals and a complex storyline (that which you can't find inother random viral outbreak movies such as Cabin Fever) you will reallyenjoy this!