Diagonaldi Very well executed

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Tss5078 In 2008, The Scott brothers, along with the master of the mini-series, Mikael Salomon, decided to remake the 1969 debut novel and 1971 film, The Andromeda Strain, written by famed Jurassic Park author, Michael Crichton. The film was in serious need of an upgrade, and while the new technology really enhanced the film, making it all the more believable, the updates to the story along with the new characters that were introduced, really did the original story a disservice. The basic story was not changed, just modernized, and for that we are very thankful. The story was always a terrific tale of Science Fiction and an early message about the damage we are doing to our planet. I like how the story was updated and I loved the technological advancements. What I didn't like was how much they changed the cast. They wanted to make them more diverse and I don't have a problem with that, but this is not a story that focuses on individuals, it's more about the virus, the technology, and the human impact on our planet. In that sense, I felt it hurt the series, but the technology enhanced it, evening things out. The original novel and movie were 4 stars, and so is the remake. It's different, but there wasn't much harm done, the way you often see in remakes. I think Michale Crichton would have approved.

Gerry Nelson I have enjoyed watching the 1971 Move "The Andromeda Strain" Starting Arthur Hill, James Olsen, Kate Reid, Mark Jenkins. many times. I read the book years ago, and I have watched the movie every few years and, though I know the plot and a lot of the dialog, it is an interesting and engaging story which had been nominated for 2 Oscars. It was an interesting, thought provoking film with some fairly tense moments in it. I found the 'new' version yesterday, recorded it, and my wife and I watched it today. As the plot of the film is being developed, somewhat differently than in the original, it becomes clear that something is likely to happen to greatly influence the progress and outcome of this version. Just when the excitement and interest start to ramp up, the story switches gears, A related incident in a town near the affected area of the virus/bug/whatever we are fighting escalates the problem. An unwise decision to proceed with an nuclear weapon meant to 'wipe out the bug' is prematurely instigated. Then the attack appears to be stopped just in the nick of time and in a few seconds, the movie is over. It was just as if there were to be one or more sequels to finish or redirect the story to conclusion, but it just quits, leaving the viewer asking 'Did I fall asleep and miss the ending? I cannot think of a single movie ever that I saw where the movie quit rather than ended. I don't think this was an ending that was supposed to send you home discussing the outcome for days.....Perhaps there is/are sequels I do not know about. If there is no sequel or followups, there are a number of side issues developed that have no meaning at all now.

james I would have given this entertaining movie 8 stars instead of 10, but I'm giving it 10 stars to "balance out" the reviewers who are giving it 1 star just because the scientists include minorities and a gay man. By the way, out of 3 hours, there is 7 seconds where we learn that one scientist is gay and then it is never mentioned again. And apparently some reviewers are shocked, SHOCKED that a Latino or an Asian-American or an African-American or a gay person could be a scientist. Of course, that says nothing about minorities, but says volumes about the intelligence of the bigoted reviewers. That said, the movie, while very entertaining, is about an hour too long. They could have left out the "CNN-type" reporter (played by a straight actor who used to play a gay character on a sitcom-----Oh No!!! Another "gay" connection! Horrors!). Almost all of his scenes were unnecessary and cutting those scenes would have made the movie better and only 2 hours.

johnslegers In spite of some minor flaws and differences from the original 1971 film, the first half of "The Andromeda Strain" was pretty decent. It wasn't anything too special, but it came off as a fairly interesting and well-executed bio-tech thriller to me.Unfortunately, all that fell apart during the second half. The most absurd plot holes or just plain absurdities followed one another at an increasing pace, which totally ruined the atmosphere built up during the first half. What started out as a fairly interesting film ended in a disaster.Adding to this, the annoying environmentalist, anti-corporate and anti-"military-industrial complex" message that's added to the story is very naive (almost childish) and doesn't mix well with the rest of the plot. It reminds me of "On Deadly Ground", where Steven Seagal takes a perfectly valid environmentalist message and turns it into an atrocious action film. Considering I actually agree with the idea that we must be aware of greedy corporations, corrupt politicians and the fragility of our environment, it really bothers me when Hollywood does such a bad job conveying that message.