The Andromeda Strain Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
In "The Andromeda Strain," a U.S. military satellite crashes in a small town and unleashes a deadly plague killing all but two survivors. As the military quarantines the area, a team of highly specialized scientists is assembled to find a cure to the pathogen code-named "Andromeda," and a reporter investigates a government conspiracy only to discover what he is chasing wants him silenced.
| Benjamin Bratt | Dr. Jeremy Stone |
| Ted Atherton | Ed Dewitt |
| Biski Gugushe | Sgt. George |
| Daniel Bacon | Spokesperson |
| Jacob Blair | Agent #1 |
| Chris Bradford | Comm Officer |
| Andre Braugher | General George Mancheck |
| Luke Camilleri | Gordo |
| Nick Dash | Sgt Bellows |
| Graeme Duffy | Wheezer |
| Teach Grant | Morgue Attendant |
| Adrian Holmes | Sam Barton |
| Shaine Jones | Samuel 'Gunner' Wilson |
| Daniel Dae Kim | Dr. Tsi Chou |
| Colin Lawrence | Agent Jefferson |
| Mikael Salomon |
6.80 out of 10 (306 votes)
Visitor Reviews
A Shameless Example of Ignoring the Qualities of Effective Sci-Fi
posted on 24 Aug 2009I was very excited to see this mini-series because I have long been a fan of Dr. Crichton's writing, and I enjoyed the 1971 film.But this was disastrous.What made Crichton's work interesting--and frightening--was the lack of control that his characters had while fighting Andromeda. They could not understand the organism's mutations, its origin, or its anti-dote. Since an understanding of Andromeda was outside the capabilities of the most talented scientists in the country, readers could experience (vicariously, of course) a sense of hopelessness--the fear that Andromeda would always be dangerous and uncontrollable (especially since the scientists did not find a cure). In a way, the film forced the audience to recognize human limitation. The message: as much science as we understand now, we will never "know it all." The screenwriter and director obviously didn't read the story thoroughly before making this unfortunate attempt at sci-fi. This piece jettisoned Crichton's message, instead giving control to the scientists and military officials. It's bad enough that the scientists actually found a cure for Andromeda. That, in itself, gave control to the humans--completely contradictory to the point of the story. But they didn't just stumble upon the cure by accident--it was SENT by humans in the future. In effect, this flawed update plays to human ego. And finding something by accident is not as fun as discovering it, right? True, many military officials--in any nation--would probably be eager to harness a biological weapon. Yet the depiction of this eagerness turned a thought-provoking, frightening sci-fi piece into a sub-par political clone. Fortunately, the political leanings of the makers of this film are not shoved down viewers' throats. Unfortunately, the resolution of the political/military problems in the film seems like the ending to a bad spy movie: a high-profile funeral, a secret meeting in a garage, and a double assassination.The only positive aspect to this film was special effects, and even those became boring. The rash that crept across the landscape was an interesting way of portraying Andromeda. But it was not an adequate substitute for actual fright, which the uncertainty in the 1971 film provided. (Side note: If Andromeda was eating rubber products--including a plane--how did the planes survive intact during the bacterial spray?)Overall, I was disappointed in this movie, and I normally have patience for sub-par sci-fi flicks. But, like me, viewers who enjoyed the 1971 version and who have read the story will probably find it unworthy of their time.
Another Bloated Remake.
posted on 24 Aug 2009I don't know why anyone would take a reasonably decent movie like "The Andromeda Strain" from the 1970s and mess with it. Until the last few minutes, the original was like a clearly written technical manual in which a team of scientists tries to solve the puzzle of a lethal organism captured in space and brought to earth. What is it? How do we deal with it? The central problems in 1978 have become the MacGuffin here. Nobody really has much trouble finding out what the organism is. THAT conundrum, which was Michael Crighton's chief interest, is booted out of the way quickly in favor of human interest, violence, and political intrigue. Oh -- and special effects that dwarf the modest versions of 1978, naturally.For the most part, the technical stuff is reduced to 1950s sci-fi gibberish. "Looks like a pure conversion system." "Try all known bacteriophages." Scientists use "theory" in the lay sense. "Do you have a better theory?" They mean "explanation." If, in the original there was a complicated but systematic detective process through which the organism's sensitivity to extremes of Ph levels was discovered -- here the boring procedure is skipped and nobody has to "figure it out." The answer comes to the beautiful young scientist in the form of a Kekule-like dream. There is no longer any tension associated with the investigation of the organism. It's as if the writers threw up their hands and figured the audience was far too impatient and stupid to sit through such high-school science antics.Bratt and the babe scientist have had an affair and they talk about why they broke it off. "I'm sure it's not the first time a researcher has had an affair with his assistant." This is terribly tedious stuff. It's like all the stricken-airplane movies in which the stewardess has had an affair with the pilot.At a tense moment, when the world may be destroyed. Aide: "Is there anything you want me to do, sir?" President (thoughtfully): "Are you a religious man? I don't mean every four years but -- do you have FAITH?" (Pause) Aide: "Yes, sir." President: "Well, then, you can pray." Now -- if they had only held on the president's solemn expression after he asked about faith, and then cut. But, no. The ritual of this stereotypical exchange must be followed through to its suppurating end.The skeleton of the plot isn't entirely without interest. A message from afar, or maybe from our own future, telling us about a dangerous pathogen. I admit I got lost here and there in the complexities of the story. And the last scene, involving a 2001-style space ship with some kind of serum being stored in a freezing compartment left me behind entirely. I think it was intended to wrap up some loose ends, some unsolved mysteries. I only wish that as much effort had been put into clarifying those mysteries as had gone into the scenes in which victims go nuts on the screen and saw their own heads off with hedge trimmers. It might have been an interesting story.Some of the acting is okay -- Benjamin Bratt and Andre Braugher -- but they don't get to do much. This is a great, big, ambitious, poorly directed imitation of a tidy old movie that should have been handled with more delicacy or just left alone. The MBAs who greenlight projects like this must have just about run out of ideas by now. How else to account for the current cascade of remakes?
Two Parts eh?
posted on 20 Aug 2009When this came out, I did not have the time to watch it so I set my DVR to record it. Nowhere in the advertisements did I see anything to indicate that it was a two part event. I finally got around to watching it and was quite irritated to discover that I have only recorded the first half. Now I have to buy the DVD because A&E is not going to re-run it anytime soon.Note to A&E: If your show is two parts, you should advertise it as such and have it listed in the guide as PART 1 and PART 2 so anyone setting about to record it for later viewing knows that they have to set up for both times.
Plodding script, bad casting, Ruined a perfectly good story.
posted on 18 Aug 2009Credibility was given the first version for the usual reasons. Is there really anyone who hasn't seen the first one? One of those was that their were gray-hairs in charge of the project and working in the lab. I find it hard to see where the survival of the entire planet would be given to a handful of young scientists. It's more like "The Andromeda Strain for kids". I understand that everyone who does a remake feels compelled to "update" by adding more time and effort to the sub-plots, but really! The original version was tight and tense for it's time. The story was compressed into a normal time slot of approximately two hours. Dragging this story out with unnecessary sub-plots and editing out pertinent data derived from the book is a good example of how to take a good story and ruin it by forcing and expanding sub-plots where they were never needed. Would be a good example for film school on what not to do in a remake.
Let the Virus Win...Please
posted on 16 Aug 2009by the way....did we mention plot holes bigger than Kamloops..oops we mean Utah?...and the ludicrous shock value violence as if to say: "look...we can show this on cable (a&e) now!".....do yourself a favor readers...watch the 1971 original film (which by the way follows J. M. C.'s novel pretty closely)...and marvel at the attention to scientific detail without any cgi, etc ..feel the excitement build without the extraneous, amateur personal "daytime TV drama" scenes...this could have been a terrific re-make...updated technology...terrorism..built around the original concept...but all it is a toothless, predictable, and less than mediocre effort that should have been called the "abominable strain on the eyes and ears"
New strain falls short of expectations
posted on 04 Aug 2009Andromeda Strain 2008 missed the mark by a long shot. While the original film made in the 1970's successfully captured the suspense of the unknown pathogen, the new version simply tries too hard to supply viewers with sexy visuals and technical jargon without ever developing the scariness and fear of the original. Even die-hard science fiction fans (such as myself) will find this film difficult to believe and overwrought. The gratuitous overuse of computer graphics borders on the ridiculous. Every computer beeps and jingles, every cellphone has an HD video camera, and microbes can be seen by the naked eye. The use of technical jargon would be forgivable if it weren't for the fact that they misuse it in almost every instance. Factual errors are made throughout the film involving the most basic of scientific and medical terms and priniples (Bacteriophages aren't bacteria, and breathing fast doesn't cause acidosis, it causes alkalosis). Andromeda Strain 2008 is watchable, but the original is a far better interpretation of the novel and a much more entertaining movie. Save yourself the trouble of watching four hours of crappy miniseries fantasy/scifi and Netflix the old one.
Go rent the original instead
posted on 02 Aug 2009I was reluctant to watch this because I liked the original and I usually hate remakes, but at 2:00am on a Saturday night it seemed like a good idea. I should have listened to my original gut instinct. There was very little about this version that was even decent. Despite the well known cast the acting was terrible. I don't know who told Benjamin Bratt he could act. The thing that made the original work was it's slow pace and the fact that the scientists were confined creating a real sense of being trapped with this unknown organism. It was a simple story that focused on the eeriness of a potential biological killer. The addition of all of the above ground subplots (the army, the reporter, Stone's family) only served to detract from the fear that the original created. I didn't care about ANYTHING going on above ground, and the stuff above ground made me not care about the people underground. This was truly awful. Go out and rent the original, Robert Wise was a fabulous director, and it's worth the $2.
Whoa! What a stinker!
posted on 29 Jul 2009TAS is why TV mini-series get a bad rap. Actually, it's also an example of why re-makes get a bad rap. Now that I think about it, it's also one of the reasons that SF gets a bad rap. This movie is a shining example of how studios and networks screw things up.The original (1971) TAS was not perfect, but it was an above-average SF thriller. The plot and the science actually made a little sense. The acting was a bit over the top, but you got some professionalism.Not so in this (2008) version. The FX are acceptable...not outstanding, but acceptable. Everything else...the script, the acting, the casting, the idiotic sub-plots...just plain stinks.This is another movie that leads me to a scary conclusion about the viewing public. If movies like this are being produced to meet the demands of the majority of the viewers out there, and many of these viewers will go on to vote in future elections, what's to become of the rest of us? Avoid this version and rent the 1971 movie instead.
So bad it hurt!
posted on 27 Jul 2009I have never given anything one star before. I've never even gone below four stars. But the A & E version of The Andromeda Strain richly deserved an exception.The Andromeda Strain is a classic Science Fiction book made into an excellent movie in the 1970's. It still holds up very well today. It focused very tightly and very specifically upon a small group of scientists. Unfortunately this TV version throws every sort of cliché in. We had the evil Presidential adviser. We had the evil adviser having an equally evil minion who shot anybody who found out anything about Andromeda. We had the drug addict reporter who stumbled onto the story.In the novel, the scientists were white men. In the movie, there was a token white woman. In the A & E version, we had the mandatory black, Asian and gay tossed in for political correctness. I can live with this. In the original, the lead scientist was a respectable married man. In this drivel, he was in a divorce struggle because he was cheating on his wife. In fact, he had an affair with one of the scientists central to the story.The woman scientist in the movie looked like a scientist, ugly. All the scientists were ugly. In this, they all looked like models.Instead of a random event from outer space, the future is using a wormhole to send us back a message coded in the ASCII computer alphabet.It's like they took the tight thriller as a rough outline and just stretched it out with absolute garbage for three hours. Perhaps the stinky fill factor isn't so surprising since the original movie was only an hour and a half.
Not Worthy of the Book, By Far...
posted on 25 Jul 2009It's obvious that Michael Crichton had nothing to do with this movie. I agree with others that he should sue.Firstly, the editing of this project was absolutely *terrible* in terms of the writing. There were obvious elements thrown in that both weren't in the book *and* made no contribution to the plot.In the book, Dr. Stone is happily married. In this remake, he's divorced with an obnoxious teenage son. In the book, the characters are mostly white males. In this remake, you've got the Rainbow Coalition. I point this out because again, it serves no purpose. In the book, there's no reporter. All the action takes place in the lab. In the remake, "Will" from "Will and Grace" shows up, heroically trying to find out what's going on. (Strangely, though, he actually ends up finding out nothing much throughout most of the movie.) Then there are all the ridiculous anti-government messages in this remake that had nothing to do with the book.Probably the most serious problem with this remake is that the agenda-driven writing created a plot that was nonsensical. Let's just examine a few of the gaping plot holes: 1) What good would time travel be? Changing the past doesn't change the present you're living in. At best, sending a message back in time would just save some parallel universe from the same fate, which wouldn't help the people sending the message at all.2) If humans sent the "message" in the form of the Andromeda strain, then what was the point of putting it in code? In fact, why send back the infectious agent at all? How about a simple message: "Don't strip mine the ocean vents. You'll need them later!"? The fact is, the original book made a lot of sense, and it was scary because it *was* believable. The holes in the remake really destroy that believability, and the useless subplots all add up to, "Who cares???"
Stupid, Idiotic, normal for a mini movie
posted on 25 Jul 2009Waste of time! IF the movie was made by a High School Drama Team... then OK... good work. Otherwise, this stinksJust like all the other "Mini Movies"... which are put together in haste... Token Asian "brain" guy Token female "hero" chick Token White "bad" guy Token military "evil" guy Token politician "cover-up" guy Token teenage "couple in love" pairTypical small town Typical... "this is going to end it all for the world" themeBad acting, bad casting, and VERY BAD research...The USAF logo... is a RECRUITING logo for the USAFThere are NO 4-Star Generals except in time of war!Why have a camouflaged business jet for the "General"? Is he going to land that thing in Iraq? Where did that response team come from so fast? No-town Utah is suppose to be in the middle of nowhere! Oh... that's right, they were dropped out of the government sponsored UFO!Since when has ANY "First Lady" looked that good?And from the very start I just knew that someone would suggest "nuking" the town... which they did suggest. That is how predictable this waste of time is!Again... if it was done by a bunch of High School drama students... then great! You have some imagination. But if I paid to have a ad during the movie... I would demand a refund!Speaking of ads.... Ford actually did an ad during the movie based on the movie... I will never buy a Ford!
preachy
posted on 21 Jul 2009if i want to be preached to by Hollywood ill watch a michael moore movie. a little more true to the book but the politics make this an exercise in liberal Hollywood politics. the media is portrayed as a shinning light. the military as maniacle killers. the government as inept opertunists. could it get any more cliché? how about the woman bomber pilot i could have just chuckled if it wasn't so canned. the most upsetting was the conclusion it was us to blame where did this come from? certainly not the book. i wish Hollywood would just make entertainment not political indoctrination. it was a sad adaptation of a truly wonderful book
How lame can it get?
posted on 19 Jul 2009I had high hopes for this movies, but they were dashed rather quickly, and the second part was really, really bad. Wormholes? Time travel? Thinking bacteria? "Bucky balls?" Ocean vent mining? What did they do, take the original story and add several clichés (government conspiracy, crusading reporter, etc.), bad science, 30-something experts, political correctness, put in all in the blender and hit puree? It was so bad, I was cheering for the bacteria!! By the way, check the IMDb ratings: the U.S. ratings are a full point lower than the non-U.S. ratings, so that 6.3 rating is bloated with bias. Just like the movie. Just rent the original Andromeda Strain with Arthur Hill, David Wayne, James Olson and see how a perfectly good movie was soiled for the new century.
Dumbed down beyond recognition
posted on 17 Jul 2009I can say without hesitation that this is one of the worst dramas I have ever seen. The writing was lousy, the effects were unintentionally hilarious and the "America, F*** Yeah!!" style melodrama was truly nauseating.It's difficult to imagine a worse remake than this. I'm a big fan of sci fi/tech thrillers, but this turd is just an embarrassment to the genre. I could feel my brain cells dying as I watched. The positive reviews for this film demonstrate that there's an audience for drivel like this, and that makes me want to move to another galaxy.Do yourself a favor and pass this one over. There's nothing redeeming about it at all.
Great miniseries, much action, a little depressing
posted on 15 Jul 2009It's been a long time since I saw a miniseries of the quality of The Andromeda Strain. The story, obviously about some type of pathogen, goes a little over the top at times (albeit in the 'we-like-zombies-and-aliens-hollywood-way') but at points you are truly on the edge of your seat. Especially the final scenes gave me the chills, since the actors really did what they were supposed to do.To those people saying the acting was 'crap', I say "Certain characters are meant to show little to no emotion, it might shock you to learn that those characters were present in this miniseries".I think the bad comments are due to the novel & the old film being out there (remakes automatically get bad reviews from people who've read the 'other stuff') and that at times The Andromeda Strain is somewhat tough to follow (and we all know that sóme people don't like to think).
Watchable, but not great
posted on 15 Jul 2009**WARNING! Review could contain spoilers**After watching the end of "The Andromeda Strain" I have to say I was disappointed. I was looking forward to a modern remake of one of my favorite books and a decent 1970's vintage movie. What I got was TV movie that took plot elements from the book, but then added some bizarre plot elements that really didn't fit.First, the good:-For a TV movie with a so-so script the acting was quite good.-The Wildfire set was very well done, and looked like a convincing high tech lab.-Aside from the poor CGI work in the F-16 crash sequence (they should have used stock film and/or models), the rest of the visual effects were fairly good.-The movie followed the set up in the novel fairly well-The way the movie modernized the novel worked decently in terms of incorporating modern technological advancements.Now, the bad:-This is really probably an unfair nitpick, but the President who was clearly supposed to sound like Bill Clinton was a distraction. Don't try to impersonate someone, just develop a new character.-The convoluted government conspiracy plot line was very irritating. It felt like it was lifted from "The X-Files". Don't believe me? Then consider that at the end of the movie an insidious government agent is watching the evidence of the incident be hidden in a secret vault. This insidious government agent even pulls out a pack of cigarettes and begins to smoke. I half expected William B. Davis (who played the infamous Cigarette Smoking Man in "The X-Files") to show up at that point. Beyond that, the government conspiracy made no sense. What where they trying to do? What where they trying to hide? How could they have appeared to know more about Andromeda than the Wildfire team, did they release it? Why did they murder people involved in the conspiracy? The movie created this elaborate conspiracy and just left it hanging with no real explanation about why it was added to the original story or anything. It was a totally unnecessary addition to the story and was the kind of plot that belonged in "The X-Files", with a better explanation.-The whole "message from the future" storyline didn't really feel like a necessary addition to the movie. Did this really add anything to the plot line beyond providing a useless "explanation" for the origin of the virus? This is a common plot element in a lot of science fiction, but really didn't seem to be a needed part of this story other than to provide the writer with an easy cure for Andromeda. And beyond that it directly conflicts with the conspiracy plot line. Afterall, if the virus is from the future, how could the conspirators appear to already know about it, are they from the future too? This would appear to fix this discrepancy, except for the fact that the idea is never even suggested!-The cheap political lines really didn't need to be added. I really don't care if a movie takes a political stance one way or another, but the lines in the movie about covering up Iraqi bioweapons and insufficient screening of container ships really felt out of place and preachy.-The writer only paid lip service to an important plot point in the book, which is why the baby and the alcoholic survived.Overall, for a TV movie this wasn't bad. Probably worth a viewing when it is rerun. However, good acting, fairly good effects, and good source material aren't enough to overcome a sub par script.
This One Doesn't Even Compare to the Original.
posted on 09 Jul 2009The original Andromeda Strain was great, it was gripping, it built suspense and was very well done. Instead of getting the story of having to solve the puzzle, it's trying to cram 3 story lines into one. There was too much going on, they were trying to focus on everything else too much. There also wasn't the focus on the story the show was too wrapped up in the graphics, and the building that they were in instead of the story of trying to figure out how to beat it.They didn't spend the time needed to figure it out, they just rushed through everything, and it didn't work. If you wanna watch "The Andromeda Strain" Watch the Original 2 Out of 10
Crichton went Hollywood, and so did this remake.
posted on 05 Jul 2009Standard Hollywood product, and very poor.I especially dislike the casting. Instead of age-appropriates medical doctors (40s-50s I'd say), the cast has been chosen for their appeal to the kids : all young (20s-40s) and racially diverse.The additional of the plot point of the strain being an alien invader sent through a wormhole to destroy us, or the suggestion that the strain have to do with a message from the Earthmen of the future, are just silly and far-fetched. If the producers/writer wanted to explore this theme further, it should have been better developed.And that the two villains of the show get their just desserts in the end is also typical of Hollywood: the bad guys must be punished the program must have a happy ending. The show's ending was there, but not as plausible and subtle as 1971's.Readers who remember the original will be disappointed; I don't recommend its purchase.
Is everyone watching the same movie?
posted on 29 Jun 2009After reading the first few pages of comments, I jumped to the last page and was reading the glowing recommendations. I wondered how this movie got a ratings average of somewhere in the middle. Are these people watching the same movie? Did they watch the original? Like many of the other earlier comments, I wonder why they had to go overboard on the ethnic and sexual diversity. I felt like I was watching an episode of Captain Planet rather than a science fiction thriller. I also echo the previous complaints of subplots going nowhere, useless characters cluttering up screen, and government conspiracy. This movie, like most of the trash on television and movie remakes, is bad. Thank goodness I borrowed it from the library rather than spending money on renting it.
Simply Awful
posted on 30 Aug 2009I wish I could give the remake of the Andromeda Strain a negative number rating of -10. This is one of the worst examples of science fiction that I have ever seen. Why do we feel today that a piece of science fiction must be bloody and fill the screen with needless gore and assorted body parts? What ever happened to SUSPENSE? The current formula is nothing more than seeing how long it takes to gross out the audience. There was too many random shootings in this so-called remake. The original version was a true classic piece of science fiction. I want movies to have good acting, plots filled with suspense instead of piles of bloody body parts, avoid bad PC-based government political commentary, and other technology eye candy "grab" devices. The current remake needs to be hidden, never to be seen again. Please, go back and watch the original Andromeda Strain. Junk like this remake reminds us of how bad Hollywood and the entire TV and movie industry has gotten in recent days. I wish an Andromeda Strain for bad movie remakes existed.... We need it!