ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

GurlyIamBeach Instant Favorite.

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Guy Lanoue Sometime in the 1970s, I think with Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, people discovered really, really bad movies could be fun. Maybe it was with camp in the 1960s, with the televised Batman. College kids would hold bad movie nights on campus. Lord knows there were so many bad movies available from Hammer Films and American International that it could be fun, but maybe it was the Special Movie Enhancers that people smoked at the time. Whatever. Supernova is not in that category. It is not inadvertently bad, as in people trying to make a good or at least passable movie with a high school film project budget. Supernova is just bad: as if people hired the worst actors, the worst scriptwriters, the worst set designers and said, okay, now make a good movie. This is just cheesy from the get go. There's no science. Obviously, people have no idea what a supernova is. There's no plausibility. Apparently, NASA and every other major scientific endeavour involve no more than four people in what looks like abandoned warehouses with a few dials from a 1900s power station. There's no logic. People are getting chased by Hezbollah wannabes, find a truck, get in and drive it 20 feet, abandon it and continue on foot for some inexplicable reason. There's no continuity. The bad guys are driving black SUVs, which they ditch to follow the scientist and his family. In a later scene, mom and daughter are driving what look like the same black SUVs. And BTW, mom and daughter look and act like they're the same age, physically (about 27) and emotionally (about 12). In the end, the rogue scientist saves the earth by – surprise! – blowing up nuclear bombs in the path of a supernova "pulse", whatever that is. Luckily, in this universe, space stations come equipped with dozens of atomic missiles. Back on earth, mother and daughter spend their time driving, if only to allow worried closeups while saving money on sets. Scientists blast off in the space shuttle while wearing 1950s fighter pilot helmets to reach what looks like a space station recycled from a 1970s movie set. Sexy Asian fellow scientist (is there any other kind?) turns out to be a traitor or completely crazy (the script is too bad to help us understand which). Russian scientist turns out to be a drunk hero. The real mystery here is how a movie cliché – a drunk Russian – managed to sneak enough vodka off the set to some viewers so they would give this turkey more than the minimum one star.

trashgang After the, no pun intended, disaster flick 2012 Ice Age (2011) I was afraid to watch this flick here made 2 years earlier. But what a big relieve. It was much better then Ice Age but still it's The Asylum so it's full of bad CGI and stupid stories. Supernova isn't full of CGI and that's a good thing but it's also the acting this time, especially from mother and daughter that tears it down. It's also full of typecasting, just look at the Russian guy, if that isn't a cliché!The effects are of course laughable, just see the lightning coming down on earth. All so silly. And when they are almost crashing with the car the mother just keep on driving until they almost crash. For a Asylum flick it isn't that bad after all but still only watchable for the geeks of bad flicks.Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

jimdclements Attempting to find a starting place for this review is like showing up at a massive train wreck to help clean up the remains. There's not really a good starting point, so you just have to dive in with your shovel.Brian Krause is the illustrious Dr. Kelvin, one of three scientists on a mission to save the world from a deadly, planet-obliterating supernova. His allies? Two other scientists who have come straight out of page 9 of "Stereotypes Weekly" - A vodka-swilling Russian with a terrible accent, and a cute petite Chinese scientist who you secretly suspect to turn traitor at any moment.Amidst saving the earth, Kelvin is distracted by threats ranging from Iranian terrorists (see page 13 of "Stereotypes Weekly"), to his hot 33 year old wife and hot 23 year old daughter who can't travel 30 miles in three days, to a ninja attempting to kill him (who looks and sounds like a petite Chinese woman...). Even his Vulcan-esque ally Henreaux eventually starts questioning whether Doc Kelvin should try to subvert the hand of God.So can the good doctor save the earth? He sure hopes to, and he has a fire-proof plan to do it: detonating a bazillion nuclear warheads right smack dab above the Earth's atmosphere. What could possibly go wrong? I have tried everything imaginable to come up with something positive enough to give this film two stars, but I simply can't. The only redeeming factor in this whole film is that the camera operators had enough skill to somehow manage to keep the cameras steady and in focus. This is quite the feat, as simply being on this set should reduce most mortals to a quivering, nauseated wreck. I suspect that they have worked as crime scene photographers, as the only way to build up the fortitude to capture a piece of work like this, as well as they have, would be to spend your days finding the best angle to really capture a mutilated decaying body left to rot in a swamp somewhere.To help understand the horror that is this atrocious waste of film, I've broke my rating into the following categories: Originality: 0 out of 10 stars. There's nothing original about this film, down to the mockbuster title. The plot is terrible, and feels like they pulled bits and pieces from a number of places. The film relied heavily on stereotypes, from Iranian terrorists that didn't really have anything to do with the film, to the inbred country hillbilly that wants to have his way with the daughter (I guess his threshold for hotness is somewhere in the 10ish years that these two actresses are apart from one another). It left you feeling like you've seen parts of this film somewhere, but you can't imagine ever voluntarily looking upon a sight so wretched.Artistic & Technical execution: 1 out of 10 stars. NASA is apparently launching shuttles from a power plant where everyone drives golf carts. The base that Kelvin & Co. work from is shot in a warehouse. The computer technology is on par with ENIAC. The graphics in the film were terrible, even for a no-budget film, and I was appalled that they chose to use stock footage from both the Challenger and Colombia disasters to represent their shuttle being blown up. Further, the cockpits of these shuttles were ridiculous, and looked more like a set one might build for their little kids. The space station is even worse, not to mention the very convenient fact that there is apparently gravity in space now, as the crew can just walk around from place to place. The only reason I give this category a single star is because somehow, amidst the sea full of awful, the camera crew managed to get their stuff right for the most part.Content: 0 out of 10 stars. Everything about this film is wrong. Why do a mid-30's looking couple have a biological child in her mid 20's who looks nothing like them? Why do the special agents allow the girls to go back home while the entire planet is apparently falling apart around them? The film has plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. They sort of allude to some people thinking that stopping Earth's demise is playing against the hand of God, but then why does the stereotypical Chinese girl (who doesn't ascribe to western religion) try to kill everyone off? Why does Kelvin seem suspicious of the drunk Russian, and not the fit Chinese girl when he just had his butt kicked by a masked assailant who was very clearly a fit Chinese girl? Seriously, there is nothing in this film that makes any sense. The science portrayed in this film is laughable at best, and they seem to ignore crucial facts, like the fact that the edge of Earth's magnetosphere is some 125 times farther from earth than any space shuttle has ever flown. We're talking tens of thousands of miles here.Overall experience: 0 out of 10 stars. Nothing in this film felt right. At some points I wondered if the scenes with the girls were going to break out into some sort of adult film. It was awkward, and nobody in the film seemed comfortable in their roles. Being an aspiring filmmaker, I love low budget indie flicks, and even by those standards, this is bad. Some films are so bad that they're funny. This film is so much worse that it goes all the way past funny, back around to being horrid. Save your money and/or time.

cassmj Sorry, just saw this despite it apparently coming out in 2009.Okay, my warning said, let me try to explain some of why. The concept is a supernova that happened in the Lyra Constellation (that is crazy in itself, as a constellation is a group of stars that look near each other from our perspective, but in reality are no where near one another -- in other words, a constellation is not a place) and we somehow get two years warning. How? No explanation (a common fault in this movie). Pappa is one of the persons conceiving of the fix to place nukes in orbit and blow them up just before the blast wave comes, thereby creating a magical shield for the planet. Well, if we can get a two year warning, why not? Acting: awful. Science: awful. Accents (actors): really awful. Story: well, most of the story was unexplained within the script. Have you heard of Snappy the Squirrel (Animaniacs)? She had a line that is worth noting here: "Thank you, Mr. Exposition." This story did a lot of telling without ever showing. Don't drop a line to say something you could have shown us.Another thing, if you've heard the term "Hang a lantern on it," this movie is a classic example. They would introduce ridiculous concepts and try to explain them away by saying it was a ridiculous concept (for example, two actors looking for a necklace they couldn't find, and they were looking in kitchen cabinets -- kitchen cabinets?. But that's okay as long as they mention they hid the necklace in an odd place, right?).The script tossed in some timely but silly elements, as well. Terrorists who were completely unexplained as to why they were there. Pappa trying to drive off in a semi-truck, but only going about 100 feet before coming to a dead end (couldn't see that far ahead, dad?). Even the title itself: 2012 appeared only in the title, nowhere else in the script.The wife and daughter were worthless, as well. They were driving from home to the air base where the husband was, and they had to drive about 50 miles, and they COULDN'T GET THERE IN THREE DAYS! At one point, the road was destroyed moments before, and somehow a road crew was able to put a sign up already that said "Road closed." One amazing department of transportation, there.One possible good thing this movie could be used for: a drinking game. Every time the wife sighs, drink a shot. You'd be plastered before the first commercial break. Be forewarned: have several shot glasses for each person, because she doesn't give a lot of recharge time in some instances.The writers did not know science, logic, or how to write a decent conversation. Do not watch this film. My girlfriend and I skimmed through the last portion of the movie, and we still want our time back.