» » Le mystère Andromède (1971)

Le mystère Andromède (1971) Online

Le mystère Andromède (1971) Online
Original Title :
The Andromeda Strain
Genre :
Movie / Sci-Fi / Thriller
Year :
1971
Directror :
Robert Wise
Cast :
James Olson,Arthur Hill,David Wayne
Writer :
Michael Crichton,Nelson Gidding
Budget :
$6,500,000
Type :
Movie
Time :
2h 11min
Rating :
7.2/10

A group of scientists investigate a deadly new alien virus before it can spread.

Le mystère Andromède (1971) Online

When virtually all of the residents of Piedmont, New Mexico, are found dead after the return to Earth of a space satellite, the head of the US Air Force's Project Scoop declares an emergency. Many years prior to this incident, a group of eminent scientists led by Dr. Jeremy Stone (Arthur Hill) advocated for the construction of a secure laboratory facility that would serve as a base in the event an alien biological life form was returned to Earth from a space mission. Stone and his team - Drs. Dutton, Leavitt and Hall (David Wayne, Kate Reid, and James Olson, respectively)- go to the facility, known as Wildfire, and try to first isolate the life form while determining why two people from Piedmont (an old wino and a six-month-old baby) survived. The scientists methodically study the alien life form unaware that it has already mutated and presents a far greater danger in the lab, which is equipped with a nuclear self-destruct device should it manage to escape.
Cast overview, first billed only:
Arthur Hill Arthur Hill - Dr. Jeremy Stone
David Wayne David Wayne - Dr. Charles Dutton
James Olson James Olson - Dr. Mark Hall
Kate Reid Kate Reid - Dr. Ruth Leavitt
Paula Kelly Paula Kelly - Karen Anson
George Mitchell George Mitchell - Jackson
Ramon Bieri Ramon Bieri - Major Manchek
Kermit Murdock Kermit Murdock - Dr. Robertson
Richard O'Brien Richard O'Brien - Grimes
Peter Hobbs Peter Hobbs - General Sparks
Eric Christmas Eric Christmas - Senator from Vermont
Mark Jenkins Mark Jenkins - Lt. Shawn (Piedmont team)
Peter Helm Peter Helm - Sgt. Crane (Piedmont team)
Joe Di Reda Joe Di Reda - Wildfire Computer Sgt. Burk (as Joe DiReda)
Carl Reindel Carl Reindel - Lt. Comroe

Michael Crichton was invited to take a tour of Universal Studios during the production of this film. His guide was none other than Steven Spielberg, who went on to adapt Crichton's most successful novel, Jurassic Park (1993).

The germ from space cost $250,000 to create in special effects.

The Wildfire scientific lab sets cost more than $300,000 to build and were described at the time as "one of the most elaborately detailed interiors ever built."

The Central Core set required the digging of a 70-ft.-deep by 40-ft.-wide hole in a soundstage.

When Dr. Stone's wife tells him someone is at the door to see him, he says, "The SDS has arrived, no doubt." "SDS" is an acronym for "Students for a Democratic Society", a protest group active in colleges in the late 1960s.

Effects footage and props from this film were reused in a number of episodes of Universal Pictures' TV series for more than a decade after its release, including The Six Million Dollar Man (1974), The Bionic Woman (1976), Knight Rider (1982) and Airwolf (1984).

A few additional details about the controversial death scene of the monkey in the laboratory: 1) It was approved by the ASPCA who was present during the filming of the scene. 2) While the monkey was filmed suffocating on CO2, assistant director James Fargo was standing just off camera wearing scuba gear and holding a second oxygen source. 3) The monkey was revived just seconds after going unconscious - a little too fast as it turns out. Watching the scene closely, the viewer can clearly see a shadow moving towards the monkey just as it goes limp. And since there was only one take it couldn't be edited out.

Screenwriter Nelson Gidding broached the idea to director Robert Wise that one of the four scientists should be a woman. Wise initially envisioned female character being something like Raquel Welch in Fantastic Voyage (1966) and objected strenuously to the change. However, after Gidding described in detail the character eventually played by Kate Reid, he convinced Wise that it was a positive addition to the story.

The computer error "601" occurs because of a system overload while trying to simulate Andromeda's growth and mutation. The error number is a reference to the computer overload error of "1202" (exactly double) which occurred on the LEM during the first lunar descent.

Patient Jackson states that he drinks "squeeze", otherwise known as Sterno, or "canned heat"; a gelled fuel made of ethanol and methanol that is sold in short, wide cans with resealable lids. When lit, it produces a low, even flame and is used primarily for heating food, as in chafing dishes. Although poisonous to drink, it became popular during prohibition, particularly in homeless camps. The product would be placed in cheesecloth or a sock and squeezed to produce the liquid alcohol, which would be mixed with fruit juice to make so-called "jungle juice." The nickname, "squeeze" is taken from this squeezing process.

Michael Crichton wrote the rough draft for the novel from which this film is adapted while he was still a medical student. He was inspired after a conversation with one of his teachers about the concept of crystal-based life-forms.

Leavitt, in a protest against inserting something to clean out the GI tract, makes the statement about "risked drowning in that foul bath". The book, but not the movie, had the Wildfire Team submerge completely in an antibiotic solution. The scene may have been cut, but Leavitt still makes reference to it in the movie.

The phrase "Let's go back to the rock and see it at four forty" is sampled in the Apollo 440 song "Ain't Talkin' 'Bout Dub".

At the plane crash site, the actor who was supposed to call out, "Major Mancheck," fell out of his trailer and broke his leg. He was replaced on the spot with Robert 'Bob' Olen, who did the lines but was never credited for it.

In the novel, the character of Leavitt is a man but is a woman (played by Kate Reid) in the film.

Crichton makes a cameo appearance in a non-speaking role during the scene where Dr. Hall is told to break scrub because he has to report to the Wildfire research facility.

In September, 1972, Universal was exhibiting this on a double bill with Airport (1970) under the tag line "Together On One Great Family Program".

The "Baby Boy" Manuel Rios was played by Robert Soto. Seven years later he appeared as a patient, this time in Hal Ashby's Coming Home (1978).

Mapping data shown for location of WildFire was from a Aeronautical Sectional Chart. The location of WildFire, as depicted, is just North of Searchlight NV and East of US-95 at approximately N35:31.94 W114:52.80. The statement regarding the reason for selection of the site was that there was no inhabitable area for a radius of 112 miles was erroneous since Las Vegas is only 27nm miles north.

The set used for the Wildfire patient 'hot' room and cage handling scenes was reused in 1979 for the TV series Buck Rogers in the 25th Century. It can be found in season 1 episode 7 at 37min.

The Andromeda Strain was a moderate box office success. Produced on a relatively high budget of $6.5 million, the film grossed $12,376,563 in North America, earning $8.2 million in US theatrical rentals. It was the 16th highest-grossing film of 1971.

The section of the film where the two scientists are in the town of Piedmont in their suits, is very similar to the opening of the Man from UNCLE episode The Man from U.N.C.L.E.: The Finny Foot Affair (1964). They were even searching for some kind of biohazard material, too, which had been taken to a local doctor, but in a small town in Scotland, where they also found everyone dead. In the UNCLE episode, the biohazard caused rapid aging, which resulted in death.

During the closed hearing the General states that the scientist in question had not been made aware of the Wildfire facility for purposes of national security. The Senator responds approvingly, stating they'd had experience with scientists before. During the time of the Manhattan Project, which developed the first nuclear weapons, a group of scientists that was aware of the potential for developing such a weapon and tried to persuade the government not to attempt to build such weapons. The scientists included Albert Einstein. After the Manhattan Project had been completed, it was learned that the technology had been leaked to the Soviets by someone on the Manhattan team.

David Wayne, who played Dr. Charles Dutton, has the same birthday (January 30) as actor Charles S. Dutton.

The pilot shown taking aerial photos of Piedmont and the one whose oxygen mask is shown disintegrating are clearly the same pilot.

Four actors would later go on to star in the hit tv series Little House On The Prairie. Arthur Hill would guest star as Lansford Ingalls (Charles Ingalls father). James Olson would guest star as a charismatic faith healer and Ramon Bieri (Major Manchek) appeared in the first ever episode as a ruthless local businessman. Richard Bull who had a smaller role as "Air Force Major" would take on the regular role of Nels Olsen, the owner of the Mercantile and star in the show for its entire nine-year run.

In the film, the computer code 601 indicates a crash due to an overload of data. In the real world this code number indicates a variety of failures. With Windows computers, 601 indicates the failure of the internal CMOS battery (the battery that maintains the clock and other basic functions). In the computers of some automobiles it indicates corrupted flash memory. In remote accessed (VPN) computer systems, 601 means that a connection cannot be established.

Film debut of Robert Soto.

Crichton was inspired to write the novel after reading The Ipcress File by Len Deighton while studying in England. Crichton says he was "terrifically impressed" by the book - "a lot of Andromeda is traceable to Ipcress in terms of trying to create an imaginary world using recogniseable techniques and real people."He wrote the novel over three years.

Filmed in 1970, not released until 1971.

The helicopter that Doctors Stone and Hall travel in is a UH-1 Iroquois.

Film rights were bought by Universal for $250,000.

In 2008, The Andromeda Strain was remade as an eponymous miniseries executive-produced by Ridley and Tony Scott and Frank Darabont, and featuring Benjamin Bratt as Stone. Other characters' names and personalities were radically changed from the novel, including making one scientist, played by Ricky Schroder, gay.

Death metal band Nocturnus has a song called "Andromeda Strain" on their début album, The Key.

Progressive metal band Shadow Gallery has a song titled "The Andromeda Strain" about genetically engineered biological weapons on Room V.

David Wayne who plays Dr. Charles Dutton also plays a character named Charles Dutton in the series The Good Life (1971) which ran from 1971-1972.

Though the movie is rated G, there is a scene featuring the nude upper body of a woman for several seconds, as the 2 doctors are touring Piedmont and viewing the victims in split screen. Presumably the guidelines were more lenient in the early 70s.

The monkey was "killed" by being placed in a large set filled with carbon dioxide. When the monkey's cage, which contained oxygen, was opened the animal was rendered unconscious by the CO2. An assistant director was off camera and brought a breathing apparatus to the monkey, who recovered immediately.

The "Odd-Man Hypothesis" is a fictional hypothesis which states that unmarried men are better able to execute the best, most dispassionate decisions in crises--in this case, to disarm the nuclear weapon intended to prevent the escape of organisms from the laboratory in the event the auto-destruct sequence is initiated. In the novel, the Odd-Man explanation is a page in a RAND Corporation report of the results of test series wherein different people were to make command decisions in nuclear and biological wars and chemical crises.

This film and Sphere (1998), also based on a novel by Michael Chrichton, have a similar concept. Both involve teams of civilian scientists who had never met each other called in to evaluate potential alien threats. In this film, it's a virus brought to Earth by a fallen satellite. In Sphere, it's a large glowing extraterrestrial orb found in a spaceship discovered on the ocean floor.


User reviews

Winenama

Winenama

I have always been attracted by science, since my early childhood. I remember seeing this movie and being fascinated by the science and technology on display in it. Today, as a MSC EE, I can see that the science in "Andromeda Strain" is accurate. In fact, it's the most accurate of all Sci-Fi movies I have ever seen (and I have seen the great majority of Sci-Fi cinema).

That's one reason I love this movie.

But there are other, probably subjective reasosn for my adulation of "Andromeda Strain": believable people and believable situations (no "last microsecond decision/action/occurance", no over-the-top behaviour, just human quirkyness, no one-man-does-it-all but teamwork and birth of ideas) and the avoidance of the cliche of only-1-will-survive. So, yes, I liked the script a lot.

I also thought the actors were good and the setting was brilliant. I am not put off by dated computer technology: the film clearly illustrates the computing capabilities at the beginning of the '70, and I find something educative and strangely reassuring in that.

I give it 10/10, and am sad that nobody produced a Sci-Fi as scientificly accurate ever since.
The_NiGGa

The_NiGGa

Robert Wise is an under rated director but in his body of work are such gems as 'The Body Snatcher', 'The Set-Up', 'The Day the Earth Stood Still', 'Odds Against Tomorrow', 'The Haunting', 'West Side Story', 'I Want to Live!' and on its own terms, 'The Sound of Music'. He managed to make genre films more interesting and watchable than other more celebrated directors.

'The Andromeda Strain' is an engrossing film from beginning to end. It is science fiction, alien virus comes to earth type thing, but has more depth than just that. The scientists, played very well by Arthur Hill, David Wayne, Kate Reid and James Olson, are fallible and have real emotions. Yet in them is a longing to know, to discover, to solve. Most popular cinema celebrate the fist or the gun but part of the excitement of this film is the use of the intellect to tackle the problem. Brains and not brawn is key.

The early scenes in the town of Piedmont are fascinating. Nothing dramatic, only small details adding up to a large tragedy. Restrained film making is not common but in this case it is really effective. After these scenes the film moves on as fear and wonder grip the scientists to a satisfying conclusion.

The electronic music is just right, the sets are atmospheric, the hard ware plausible and the photography simple and effective. A mention should be made of Paula Kelly as a nurse, an excellent actor and shamefully under used in films. (She is great in 'Sweet Charity' too.)In a supporting role she gives an intelligent, spirited performance.

A near perfect film. Hopefully no one will re-make it.
Jek

Jek

The Andromeda Strain is virtually perfect. And it doesn't need the special effects of Alien to succeed in telling the similar story of alien life and our contact with it. The movie is captivating right from the starting credits that introduce us to story. Of course, the director had a brilliant novel of Michael Crichton, but he also did his best to bring this novel to the screen sacrificing neither the main idea, nor the minor details. Actually, all the details that mark every scientific thriller by Crichton are there in the film. The Andromeda Strain doesn't have any dinosaurs, it only has a small virus, but overall it is a much better film than any of the Jurassic Parks. And it succeeds in telling us a great story about science much better than some modern CGI-filled movies like Invisible Man.

Finally, the acting is flawless, the actors are great, sets are excellent. If you want to see a great sci-fi movie, choose this one and you want be disappointed.
Xor

Xor

And yet, you just can't help yourself. Under Robert Wise's direction, this tale of microbiological Armageddon unfolds with such perfectly metered suspense that by the 100th viewing, you STILL find yourself glued to your couch. You HAVE to see how it turns out, even though you already know.

Although the film is well over 20 years old, and the computer equipment at the Wildfire laboratory shows its age, this is a perfect change-of-pace film for any movie monster fan. Heck, you've probably already let your kids see the bloody carnage in "Jurassic Park" anyway.

Instead of the usual radioactive mutated towering apparition that flattens cities and topples skyscrapers, the monster in "The Andromeda Strain" is so tiny, it takes powerful electron microscopes to see it. The average movie monster can only cause damage wherever he can stomp, smash or exhale a blast of fiery breath. Andromeda has the potential to be carried to every corner of the world by the winds, where it could conceivably wipe out all life. Try to top THAT, Godzilla!

The real star of the film is Wildfire itself. A government facility located (we thought) safely away from populated areas, it bristles with everything a microbiologist needs to avert a biological disaster. . .or does it?

Seeking an unprecedented realism, director Robert Wise insisted that everything on the set be real, from the computer terminals (with their quaint light pens) all the way to the electron microscopes. The Wildfire set is every microbiologist's dream come true and it's populated by a quartet of actors!

Since the presence of a big-name star might blunt the impact of this high-tech visual feast, Wise carefully assembled a cast of fine actors who just don't happen to be household names. Without rehashing the characterizations, we'll just say that Arthur Hill, David Wayne, James Olson and Kate Reid couldn't possibly have been more perfect for their roles. With a less competent cast, "The Andromeda Strain" could have degenerated into a parody of itself. This is gritty work, saving the world from biological annihilation. It takes real ACTORS, not just pretty-boy movie stars!

Go ahead. Be scared out of your wits by something so tiny, you can't even see it. I dare you to try and get up before it's over.
Ienekan

Ienekan

I really love this film, and its funny because most people Complain about its slow pace, but I believe that this is one of the reasons that the film is so good, and pace does build up towards the end.

I understand that this film isn't for everybody, but I am a Michael Crichton fan, and I enjoy the way he introduces his sci-fi characters into his novels.

I agree with other user comments that this film was way before its time, and disagree with others who don't seem to be able to differentiate between the music and the sounds in the film.

The film has so many qualities, and is a must see for any sci-fi fan.

9/10
Gir

Gir

The 1970s were a time before some of the "intelligentsia" of American culture began to abandon rationality and reject science on pseudo-ethical grounds. Unsurprisingly, then, 1970s sci-fi is often better informed by science than the sci-fi of later decades, and it is also often more thoughtful and intelligently written. The Andromeda Strain is one of the best hardcore sci fi epics from a decade which brought us such genre classics as 2001, Solyaris, Silent Running, and the original Rollerball. Unlike most of these films, however, Andromeda Strain does not strain believability beyond its bounds, nor does it indulge in metaphysical tangentializing or philosophical moralizing.

Developed from what I consider to be Michael Crichton's best book, the Andromeda Strain takes its cue directly from the hard realism of that book, along with its documentary style and scientific background research. Though aspects of the plot defy biological probability, if not law, almost the entire film is plausible. Also borrowed from Crichton's writing is the general point the film attempts to make - one which is present in nearly all of Crichton's work - that along with technological advance comes risk. Fortunately, however, this story does not reach the near-paranoid levels of technophobia which sometimes appear in later works.

A great ensemble cast full of not easily recognized character actors represent a team of scientists called together to contain and manage a deadly virus-like organism which has arrived on a crashed space research probe. The virus has already wiped out an entire town, and now the scientists must work at a breakneck, sleepless, pace to determine what the organism is, how it spreads and grows, and how it can be killed or contained. Their only major clues, it seems, are an old man and a baby who survived the initial outbreak. To avoid spoilers, I will avoid any further details regarding the plot.

The only aspect of the film which really seems dated is the strange electronic soundtrack, which, at times, seems more derivative of 1950s sci-fi than more modern stuff. Suffice to say that this is one of the best uses of the 'as-it-happens' documentary film-making style. The entire film is delivered in a very refreshingly straightforward manner, with believable dialog, actors that look like real people, and a pace that builds constantly from start to finish.

Highly recommended.
thrust

thrust

It reminds me a bit of "The Forbin Project" in that it presents us with a puzzle that needs solving by intellectual means, and with a problem that has momentous overtones. They wouldn't make it today. Look at the cast. Arthur HILL? Kate REID? They'd need DeCaprio and Roberts at least. And "angstrom units"? And not a single gun or punch in the mouth? And the bomb doesn't EXPLODE? No, no, no -- all wrong.

Well, the movie IS dated, true, but not in ways that count. I can handle the fact that clerks still use typewriters instead of PCs. I can live with the awe that is supposed to be instilled in us when we watch somebody use the mechanical hands. And the references to "love ins", and "SDS", and "protest marches," and the notion that the collection of deadly organisms from space may have been deliberately carried out by the DOD. (I forget who objected to that implication but I don't find it the least implausible, not anymore.)

The story proceeds logically, step by step, through the introduction of the characters (with Kate Reid providing some welcome Thelma-Ritter-type comic relief), the introduction of the organism (if that's the proper word), and the identification of its nature. Never for a moment does the script lapse into mumbo-jumbo. We're never lost. We always know who's doing what, and why.

And in the age of ebola, AIDS, and SARS, I think we can forget about the fact that some of the technology is dated, because the issue certainly isn't.

On the other hand, I wish the end had never come, because the movie completely implodes during its last ten minutes or so, by deus ex machina. I mean, here these guys are, working like hell to solve a problem, and when they're just about to do it, the problem goes away by itself and is completely forgotten. Instead we have a conventional chase scene. Can James Olsen stop the nuclear device from detonating, while alarm bells ring and a recorded voice counts down the minutes and seconds, and automatic lasers are shooting at him? Are you kidding? The Wildfire station may not be destroyed but the heretofor well-constructed story is.

Still, this is worth seeing, for a number of different reasons. One of the main ones is that they so rarely make 'em like this anymore.
Dishadel

Dishadel

Easily - EASILY - the best film Michael Crichton has had anything to do with. (That is, of the ones I've seen. For the record, the rest are: `Westworld', `The First Great Train Robbery', `Disclosure', `Jurassic Park', `Twister', and `Congo', although I've never made it to the end of `Congo'.) Does this say something about Crichton's career, or the state of film-making, or neither? Can't say.

Whatever - this is pretty darned good science fiction. Sure, it has the vices we've come to expect: scientists with a tendency to act like the crew of the Enterprise, and central protagonists who begin the film by swimming through treacle and end it by leaping tall buildings in a single bound. As for the former problem, well, it's not so bad here as it usually is. As for the latter, well, it's easy to forgive, because we're put through a very tense ride before our heroes crawl out of the treacle - even afterwards. They don't make films this tense these days. Or at least, this particular film would have been less tense if it had been made these days. I don't think a modern director would have resisted the temptation to goof off at some point.

THAT'S part of the charm. The film's idea of how scientists behave is rather a silly one, but at least the scientists aren't forced to act GOOFY in order to show that scientists are really human, after all - as if there was any need to show this. And I'll say this: whatever the scientists were like, the SCIENCE is much more intelligent than a modern public has any right to expect. So far as I could tell (not that I'm an expert in anything) it only stretches into fantasy when it needs to. Wise gives us information, and plenty of it - not techno-babble.

I've heard people snicker at the thirty-year-old look of the film, but I think they're nuts. The art direction is wonderful. In a way it does the same thing as the original Star Trek: it creates a coherent, claustrophobic world by force of sheer simplicity. But to see `The Andromeda Strain' is to see it done WELL.
Zargelynd

Zargelynd

I saw this movie quite a while ago, but it made a cracking impression on me. Really if you like 60/70 sci-fi movies this is definitely the movie youve been searching for. Brilliant camerawork ,acting, scenary. And the story is so *****in good. Its too bad they dont make these anymore nowadays.

Believe me if i tell you that im a very critical moviefanatic but this movie is really the best sci-fi movie after A space Odyssey 2001.

9+ / 10 GREAT!!!!

Well on second hand 10 / 10
Cetnan

Cetnan

From the day I first saw this movie back when it first came out, it has stuck in my mind for over 30 odd years. Kind of makes you think about how many of the same facilities the government has and has had in operation doing the same functions. New military toys, area 51 and on and on.

A very well made movie that has etched itself into my mind. keeps you thinking and watching the movie keeps you glued to your seat.

I would advice anyone that has not viewed this movie to give it a shot. These same type of facilities are all over the world, the question is how many are really as secure as they were designed to be.

Just like in the movie there always could be some unknown or alien substances that cannot be contained, or might just feed on the materials used to restrain them.
Meztisho

Meztisho

Based on Michael Crichton's first novel, THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN, released in 1971, is a long but constantly intriguing science fiction drama whose concerns verge very close to science fact.

The movie concerns a satellite that crashes back to Earth, carrying with it an unknown but deadly organism. All but two (a drunk, and an infant) of the sixty-eight residents of the tiny town of Piedmont, New Mexico have been killed by the organism. It is up to a team of scientists working at an underground lab in the Nevada desert known as Wildfire to study and, if possible, eliminate the bug.

Arthur Hill, David Wayne, James Olson, and Kate Reid are the quartet of scientists who are given the task to learn more about this space organism. At Wildfire, they have all the equipment they could possibly need, including a nuclear device that is set to go off should the lab become contaminated. They learn, however, that the bug, code-named Andromeda, actually works like a reactor, changing matter into energy and vice versa. This means that the nuclear device meant to destroy it would only enhance it and spread it all over so that the human race will never be rid of it.

The nightmare they feared comes true, as Wildfire becomes contaminated. With only a five-minute delay between activation and self-destruction, Olson is given the task to get to a shutoff switch. He struggles but manages to prevent the unthinkable...with eight seconds to spare.

Brilliantly directed by Robert Wise, whose 1951 film THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL is one of the genre's all time greats, THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN is highly entertaining and strikingly intelligent, with a suspenseful climax. The four lead actors, neither of whom were big names, do extremely good work, giving this film a realism not found in many other films of the genre. The Wildfire lab is as accurate and realistic as anything today's production designers could come up with. Furthermore, the technology doesn't seem too terribly dated despite the film's obvious age. This is because of the innovative special effects work of Douglas Trumbull (2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY), James Shourt, and Albert Whitlock (THE BIRDS).

Rated 'G', though 'PG' would be more accurate (some scenes are frightening), THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN remains a significant film of the sci-fi genre as it confronts the increasing realities about biological war and contamination. Dated or not, it is a very prescient piece.
RUL

RUL

First of all, I must confess that I am a Si-Fi nut. I've seen lots of Si-Fi movies and The Andromeda Strain is definately in my top five. The plot is very interesting in that it deals with a microscopic organism from outer space that is brought back to Earth by a satellite. The cast is outstanding, especially Arthur Hill who plays the leader of the research team. One of the great things about the movie is that it moves right along. So many movies seem to lag, especially at the beginning as the characters are being introduced. However, in this movie, even the beginning is exciting. I've watched this movie over and over, and never seem to get tired of it. It's just plain fun.
Kipabi

Kipabi

At the center of The Andromeda Strain is a really tremendous idea couched in a bittersweet reality. The idea is not about science but about entertainment: Once upon a time (as recently as 1971) you could make a movie that showed people reckoning with their own intelligence to solve a problem, and that alone was sufficiently engaging that explosions, violence, chases and 2-dimensional villains were not allowed to intrude as the cop-outs they are. The bittersweet reality is: that moment is now gone, receding into the past... to make way for what has been called "The Dumbest Generation" who don't like to think very much.

How incredible that audiences were offered a sometimes superficially dull movie, under the firm understanding that in reality there's nothing as exciting as the human mind, and the process of reasoning through a problem (well, ...if you've developed your mind). Delightfully, no one is turning the exploration of science into a excuse to invoke a religious bogeyman (Contact). One qualm is the lack of explanation for what purpose or end such a virulent virus can have when its kills its hosts so rapidly, with its existential potential halted shortly after.

Money has been spent. Most of the sets are at the very least, pretty interesting. Wise and Crichton are definitely aware of Kubrick and Clarke's superior work in 2001. The movie is guilty of just two cop-outs: the horrid, miserable, combative hag/misanthrope Ruth is provided as a scapegoat, and the computer countdown to self-destruct is not a good enough idea for a movie this deliberate. The movie features the least interesting deployment of split screen I've ever seen (Wise is not a terribly imaginative guy), and the camera work is nothing special. The decision to shoot this in a conventional aspect ratio is unfathomable. I suspect this would be a much better known and loved movie with a wide screen process. The sets, technology and ideas are just begging for it.
Samut

Samut

This movie is an older movie, but it is still great.The plot is very exciting and keeps you on the edge of your seat with its twists.The characters aren't perfect and that makes them more real.There have been better sci-fi movies made,but it is quite entertaining to watch on a carefree weekend.
Nirad

Nirad

This is clearly Michael Crichton's finest work. The visionary, forward-thinking of Crichton, is remarkable- as evidenced in this film. Robert Wise' direction is superbly innovative, for its' time even. In addition, Douglas Trumbull's special effects warrants very special recognition, simply because his work was done entirely without the aid of advanced computer graphics(did not exist, in 1971). This is also the very first time I have ever seen computer touch-screen graphics demonstrated! I find this film 100% accurate- in terms of plot, story, technology and characters. The underlying theme of science fiction, meeting science fact- paints a very plausible occurrence in our foreseeable future(and NO- not a single animal was harmed during filming!)

This film was a result of bright minds, teamwork, and the dedicated acting of all actors involved- especially James Olson, and Kate Reid. I have always admired Arthur Hill's performances on television, back in the bygone days, when television was really worth watching.

I consider this film one of the few remaining, "G-rated" drama/thrillers, and highly recommended in every science-fiction fans' DVD collection, along with, "2001-A Space Odyssey," "Star Wars," "Soylent Green," and "Alien".
Binthars

Binthars

One of the most rigorously complex books by Michael Crichton has managed to withstand the sands of time to remain a taught and gripping thriller. Instead of big special effects, this film relies on situations and dialogue, letting the intensity of the characters tell the story. All of the actors involved were excellent, exhibiting the complexity of their various roles and the scientific savvy they had to possess. While some will put down the film for its strange colors and lack of a bombshell actress (oh boo-frickety hoo!), the strength lies in the people's eyes. This technique is now being reused in films like Signs, and let's hope this method of fear and paranoia reasserts itself in the modern world.
Unnis

Unnis

This is a truly top-notch film, which never once insults your intelligence. Four top scientists are assembled to unravel the mystery of a deadly substance that has fallen to earth inside a satellite. An entire town, where it was found, is wiped out save for a crying baby and a wino. The survivors and the satellite are taken to a state of the art biological research facility to figure out what the substance is, how it works, and why it killed the townspeople and just as importantly, why it didn't kill the two survivors. Arthur Hill is perfect as the Nobel Laureate Dr. Stone. David Wayne, Kate Reid and James Olson are all quite good as his team. This film covers the entire range of the scientific realm from technology, to politics, to Murphy's law, to scientists egos. Of course the technology in the film is dated (1971), but the interaction between the team members is entertaining and Murphy's Law rears it's head at every turn. The supporting cast is particularly good, and Roberts Wise's direction is on the money. Read the book and watch the film!
Dianaghma

Dianaghma

I remember watching this film for the first time late one night with my father and younger brother. I was five years old, I already knew I was going to be a scientist, and I was *riveted* to the show. The next day I *demanded* that my mother take me to the library to check out the book. Despite having seen the movie, I read the novel with as much excitement and anticipation as I watched the film. I questioned every adult I knew who had any sort of science or medical background about the ideas I found in the story.

For someone who considers self-awareness, intelligence, and rational thought the defining and redeeming qualities of humanity, and the scientific method, from chipping stone tools to putting a man on the moon, the single greatest achievement of humanity thus far, it has always appeared to me that the arts have been overwhelmingly negative in their portrayal of science. The mad scientist and the evils of scientific progress, the superiority and 'humaneness' of emotionalism and impulsiveness over rational thought and diligence, all are staples of Western culture.

The Andromeda Strain is different; it is realistic in that good and evil are identified with people and their motivations. However it is used, science is powerful: as a tool for learning, understanding, and interacting with nature. Wildfire, the facility where a cure for Andromeda is sought, we learn, was actually built for darker purposes. Despite that, it serves to help the team of scientists understand a radically different form of life, a form of life with a unique origin. The characters of the scientists, also, are real people; brilliant in their areas of knowledge, yet bearing characters flaws. In the end, despite arrogance, irresponsibility, quarrelsomeness, it is their passion to learn, to understand, to solve a significant and meaningful problem, which overcomes their flaws and focuses their talents.

I remember this movie fondly, and watched it any time it came on TV (before the era of video tape). I still have an often-read paperback copy of the novel. I recently viewed the movie on video, and highly recommend it. There are a few isolated sections which are dated, but they don't harm the film. Since the film wasn't attempting to be "futuristic", I actually enjoy seeing the "advanced" technology of the time, and contrasting that with current technology. The special effects are still well-done. The scientific realism is due mainly to Chrichton; however, Wise deserves credit for keeping faithful to the novel. He doesn't add layers of glittery pseudo-technology and techno-babble.

If you want to inspire a young scientist or engineer, or simply offer some counterbalance to all the science-is-evil sentiment that saturates both information and entertainment media, read the novel, then watch the movie. Show them that challenge and excitement can be found in constructive, collaborative, and intellectual activities. I am doing that now with each of my children; when they have all read the novel, we're going to have an "Andromeda Strain" party and watch the movie together. We'll discuss what parts were realistic, the social questions at issue when the movie was made (biological warfare, the space program, the beginnings of genetic engineering), and what science it actually about. I hope it will be as inspirational to them as it was for me.
tamada

tamada

Most of Crichton's fabulous works have been made laughable when filmed. However, THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN is a wonderful adaptation of his classic novel. As others have told the storyline, I will not waste your time be regurgitating it. The one change of Dr. Leavitt from male to female improves the film, IMO. It also adds some great humor. It's also enjoyable to see scientists that look like scientists, not hot studs and big breasted bimbos. The story is realistic, and as I said, a perfect adaptation of his novel. My only complaint is the thrown in narration explaining the piece of paper that had caused the machine to not ring its bell when the new messages came in. Other than that, it's a fabulous film. :) (I was able to get one of the few remaining copies of the now out-of-print DVD widescreen version) Go to an auction site and get it if you can.. Highly recommended!
romrom

romrom

Okay, well, you would. And we did. It was called "Outbreak." And if they ever did a remake, Outbreak is what we'd get. Kate Reid? Nah, let's get Cindy Crawford. And we'd need a Baldwin brother. Probably Jean Claude Van Damme as the head scientist too. Wise doesn't pander to anyone except people that want a realistic believable movie. The outbreak proceeds with a slow, methodical precision (compounded by human errors) that makes it much more realistic than Dustin Hoffman playing chicken with atomic bombers any day of the week. And a lot more horrifying to boot.
Tansino

Tansino

This film was great, although it helps if you read The Andromeda Strain by Michael Crichton before the movie.Even if the ending wasn't that memorable, more or less the film had a lot of good stuff. If I ever do become a director I'll be sure to direct a remake of this classic.
Mataxe

Mataxe

The first time I saw this movie I was still in my early teens. Already having an interest in the sciences and the movies, "Andromeda Strain" really caught my attention. A recent viewing -this time as an adult in his early thirties- showed that the movie hadn't lost much of its riveting quality. It's not a low-brow action movie, but an intelligent sci-fi thriller about a micro-biological crisis (initiated by an extra-terrestrial(!) virus brought to earth by a space probe), made long before "Outbreak" and the like. Fine acting and the thorough re-creation of the scientific procedures described in Michael Crichton's novel -on which the movie is based- make this a first choice for viewers with an interest in sci-fi with more than a slight touch of reality. Hints at U. S. plans for biological warfare near the end also make this a political thriller of sorts! Only drawback: The colors appear a bit pale nowadays, as is the case with many 70's films, but since most of the scenes are set in a sterile, monotonous laboratory environment, this doesn't spoil one's viewing experience. Watch out for the eerie opening sequence set in a small desert town where everyone was killed by the "Alien" virus, except for an old drunkard and a baby!
Ttexav

Ttexav

With so many liberties being taken when writing screenplays based on novels, you often end up with a movie that is totally different from the book. Maybe some people like that, and since few people read books anymore anyways, rarely does anyone notice it. That is why I think this film is excellent. There were some small parts of the book that were left out, but from start to finish this film does the best job following the novel that I've ever seen from Hollywood.
Berenn

Berenn

After I viewed this film, which is excellently done in all regards, I discovered the one fault... it's G rated! This is way too intense for young kids!!! I can live with a PG, or better yet a PG-13, but not the G. The film is very realistic, very well acted, and has a believable story for the genre. A solid 9 from me, but keep the kids away, please.
Whiteseeker

Whiteseeker

I'm glad to see all the positive comments for the original version of this story. I haven't read the book, but I remember what a phenomenon the movie was to kids of my age in 1971 (I was 11). This movie gets played to death on cable here, but I always end up watching parts of it, even though I have it on DVD.

What strikes me about the comments though is that nearly everyone describes it as dated, as if in 1971 people should have known to use touch screens and the like. This is the first instance that I know of which used science-fact technology instead of science-fiction projection to tell the story, and as such that's what made it so chilling. It's the grounding in things like typewriter-based computers that made it seem so real.

In fact the production design is the true star of this movie, as the story slowly leads us into the sterile, space-station-like world of the underground laboratory. We're taken on a tour of the Wildfire facility, and each step is explained methodically and in detail in terms that the audience could relate to and yet still feel like it was a newly expanding universe.

Such movies not only seemed entirely plausible in 1971, but also managed to condition us ordinary folks into the space-age notions that anything was possible, in both positive and negative terms. It was a time when we had just landed on the moon, when computers were the size of rooms, and the economy hadn't yet crashed, but there was still great fear of the unknown. What if those moon rocks they brought back carried a virus that could wipe out all living things on Earth? That question was what prompted Crichton to write the original novel, I would suspect.

There's no doubt that Andromeda Strain owes a great deal to 2001, and it recycles that movie's slowness and fascination with sterile technology in a more mainstream style. I enjoy how Robert Wise looks for ways to open up his movies, and I rarely mind the "old-man" sensibility he brings to so many of his later films. The fact that the principles in this are so unglamorous is a very smart and completely appropriate solution. It makes it all the more realistic, in that Robert Wise sort of simulated reality. He really deserves a lot of credit for the sheer variety of films he directed. I think he was a national treasure.

In retrospect it's great that this film holds up so well, and is a tribute to Wise's carefully modulated sense of humor, taste and style. Just trying to watch a few seconds of the remake demonstrates how subtlety and nuance and smart old people can trump pretty hacks at any time.