अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंA deep space rescue and recovery spaceship with a crew of 6 receives a distress call from a mining operation 3432 light years away. A rescue operation via dimension jump is made. Bad idea.A deep space rescue and recovery spaceship with a crew of 6 receives a distress call from a mining operation 3432 light years away. A rescue operation via dimension jump is made. Bad idea.A deep space rescue and recovery spaceship with a crew of 6 receives a distress call from a mining operation 3432 light years away. A rescue operation via dimension jump is made. Bad idea.
- Troy Larson
- (as Knox Grantham White)
- Sweetie
- (वॉइस)
- Rescue Leader
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
कहानी
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाWalter Hill, who replaced Geoffrey Wright as director, only had two months to prepare and re-write the script before principle photography was planned, as the studio wanted filming done before an imminent Screen Actors Guild strike was to start later that year (it was later averted). However, Hill clashed over his script with the studio, who cut the budget halfway through shooting. Furthermore, due to special effects house Digital Domain considering a partnership with MGM, production was supposed to get a discount on the special effects, but when that deal fell through, they had to pay for "the full spa treatment", and about half of the planned shots had to be scrapped. Hill also disagreed with MGN on their decision to screen his first cut without many of the effects shots for a test audience (which, as he predicted, was a disaster), and their refusal to allow for additional filming (which had to be done anyway after Hill walked out). In an interview years after the release, Hill said that his version was much darker, had a very different setup and that the ending was much different from the final cut. He also expressed strong dislike for the way the studio ruined the movie but said that James Spader did a great job with his role.
- गूफ़At the end of the movie one of Nick's eyes is blue and one is brown. When they show him again from the side the other eye is blue.
- भाव
Karl Larson: I think you're making a big mistake, Captain.
Nick: [spins on his heels] Oh, yeah? You want to clarify that?
Karl Larson: I'm offering you the opportunity of a lifetime and you're passing it up for all of us.
Nick: For all of us? Your opportunity of a lifetime has cost us the life of our ship's captain, it has endangered the lives of this crew, and it's wasting our critical time. All this for some half-baked delusional belief that you'll make yourself rich. There is no opportunity here and there is no us.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटDirector Walter Hill is credited under the pseudonym "Thomas Lee". See Trivia for more information.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनVHS/DVD versions run 91 min. and are rated R.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in WatchMojo: Top 10 Movie Fights in Spaceships (2014)
This film was plagued with problems--the originally attached director, Geoffrey Wright, quit. The replacement director, Walter Hill, had creative differences with the studio, which demanded re-shoots and new cuts from none other than Francis Ford Coppola and Jack Sholder. Hill ended up requesting that his name be removed, and used the new version of the infamous "Alan Smithee" designation--"Thomas Lee".
And that wasn't the end of it. Upon its release, Supernova received a critical drubbing. Rotten Tomatoes, for example, a website that collates professional and semi-professional reviews on films, showed a 90% negative reading on Supernova. The reaction from everyday viewers mirrored this reception, with mostly negative comments right here on IMDb.
But Supernova isn't that bad of a film. It's no gem, but it does a lot of things right: The premise is certainly stimulating. The transition from a stock, Alien (1979)-like sci-fi film to a thriller in space is well done. The characters are interesting. The suspense level gradually increases until the very end of the film.
There are thoughtful subtexts about giving oneself over to a "feel-good" substance, "survival of the fittest" evolution, and cyclical regeneration. The "fountain of youth" device is intriguing, and even though the "Ninth Dimension" stuff is gobbledy-gook, it's good gobbledy-gook--it makes some sense as fantasy material, and it provides a lot of suspense. There is a subtle social commentary/criticism on attitudes about violence in the media, population problems and eugenics.
A lot of the cast is also good--I like Robert Forster a lot, although unfortunately he disappears from the picture too soon. I'm also a fan of Lou Diamond Phillips, even if his presence more often than not signifies a "C", "D" or lower film. James Spader's characterization of Nick Vanzant is nice and complex. And the rest of the cast is at least decent, even if Peter Facinelli overacts a bit towards the end--but the role calls for that.
However, as a 7, Supernova has its share of problems, too. I don't usually subtract points for a film being clichéd, but it's difficult not to do so in this case. The beginning of the film is right out of Alien--with the ship waking up a crew member unexpectedly, after running some "tests". This is saved a bit by funny dialogue at the end of the scene. The computer, "Sweetie", is reminiscent at times of "Hal" from 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). The holographic chess game is right out of Star Wars (1977). The distress signal scenario is again out of Alien, and the exploration of the abandoned mine on the rogue moon is similar to Aliens (1986).
The dialogue in the opening of the film is also a bit too jargonistic and quickly delivered for its own good. It can be difficult to get the gist of it without subtitles. There are a number of editing problems, most prominently during the "near miss" of the out of control ship with the moon--shaky cam cinematography doesn't help, either. And for so many directors being involved, the direction, while not incompetent, comes across as primarily "flat".
Is Supernova worth seeing? If you're a huge sci-fi fan (meaning that you watch and like most sci-fi films) and you do not mind familiar material that's slightly clunky at times, yes. There are enough positives to make it worthwhile. Like usual with 7s, the film is best approached with lowered expectations. Given the reputation of this film, that should be no problem.
- BrandtSponseller
- 3 मार्च 2005
- परमालिंक
टॉप पसंद
विवरण
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $9,00,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $1,42,30,455
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $57,78,639
- 16 जन॰ 2000
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $1,48,28,081
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 30 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.35 : 1