A for Andromeda (2006)

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

This is a fine example of British science-fiction. Necessarily wordy due to its low-budget, successful British SF has always had to rely on strong concepts, strong writing and carefully created atmosphere. In the same vain as Quatermass and Dr Who much of the action consists of people in a room talking about abstracts. Some will be bored to tears; but those with an imagination may find this story of predeterminism vs personal will and morality very engaging. If there's a flaw then it's that some of the, very real, science is over-simplified to an unbelievable degree. An audience is able to accept the idea of an alien transmission containing instructions on how to make a malevolent supercomputer. But the idea that these scientists are also experts in genetic engineering and quickly have all of the expertise and equipment necessary for their task stretches credibility too far. It's a shame because these problems could have been easily avoided with a little more creativity. At heart though this is a good, old-fashioned, morality play with some impressive performances and a rare intelligence.

It's hard to believe this film was (re)made in 2006. OK, it's a low-budget production shot on video for TV, but the production values aren't really the problem - plenty of shot-for-TV-on-a-shoestring stuff is watchable without cringing embarrassment. Nor is the plot, per-se, the problem - as Sci-Fi goes it's a respectable enough premise, and it ought to have been possible to make a decently entertaining film out of it.No, what staggered me was the incredible way in which even the most basic appreciation of contemporary science and technology seems to have eluded the writers, script editors and director.I know this is a common complaint about sci-fi adaptations, and sometimes seen in artistic circles a churlish and unfair criticism - after all, these are "creative people", not "cold-fish scientists" (as the stereotypes go) - but this film is scarily Luddite to the point, as I said, of embarrassment. The most self-consciously "arty" of my friends and acquaintances have a better grasp of basic technology than the writers involved in this turkey. I have to wonder if the makers of this film are the ones featured in all those myths you encounter: Folk who think covers on their wall sockets stop the electricity dribbling out; people who use their computer CD ROM trays as cup holders; those who try to copy floppy discs on a photocopier or staple documents to their computer screen by way of e-mail attachments.Here, it seems a real pride has been taken in ensuring that most of this film's potential audience, who in 2006 might be assumed to be vaguely technically literate, would suffer tooth-gnashing agony every three to five minutes.So given the above, I hope it's meant to be a parody. Taken as a parody of the genre it fares a bit better, but it's still deficient insofar as it's not so much funny as painful, and badly paced at that.To steal a phrase, this movie fills a much-needed gap.

Despite some of the disparaging comments on here, I gave this a go and I think it was more than worth an hour and a half of my time. I enjoy Si-fi that's more based on ideas than SFX, and this was a prime (if somewhat truncated) example. I agree they could have done with more time but I didn't see anything wrong with the acting, Tom Hardy being particularly good. All in all very watchable stuff, which deals with issues from the more interesting end of science fiction..p.s, paulj-murphy, I know you probably wanted to look smart but they didn't send any messages to Andromeda, they only conversed with the computer, which wasn't millions of light-years away after all...

unlike everyone else here, i enjoyed it thoroughly. granted, i am not old enough to remember the original, i believe this to be an advantage. i had nothing to compare it to. on its own it is an excellent piece of British SCI FI. i enjoyed it a lot i am going to find the original now and watch that. but i will not compare them. like Battlestar Gallactica. you cant really compare them, so why bother. i know it is a remake but it doesn't mean have to compare them does it. secondly who cares about some minor holes in the science of it. does it detract from the enjoyment of the show? there are so many shows that don't follow the science of today so why should this?all in all i really liked this. well done the BBC.