A for Andromeda

Its wonderful creative work under minimal budget, i don't think most of the people will understand and like it. Some of us will love it who good imagination =)

This is a totally pointless remake of the 40 year old TV series that launched Julie Christie. No such luck this time round. The film opens with a completely irrelevant rock-climbing scene and then deteriorates. There is just enough to hold some interest in the early scenes, set in an unrealistically empty government research laboratory, with just four scientists - evidence of BBC cost-cutting? All the cash seems to have gone on one special effect.

But when the military appear, the whole storyline collapses. Even the acting is wooden, with good actors such as Jane Asher and Tom Hardy unable to rise above the poor material they have to perform with. The risible debates - good scientist against wicked soldier, human against alien, risk-taking biologist against cautious computer scientist - are couched in the crude terms of a 1950s American B-movie. Before the end - no spoilers but utterly predictable - the only question I'm left with is "why am I wasting my time watching this rubbish?"

'A FOR ANDROMEDA is an example of what could be called conceptual science fiction', says producer Alison Willett in the 'extras' of the DVD of this film. She hoped the BBC would commission more of that, but it did not. They declined for instance to remake the sequel. This film was made in ten days on a low budget, but the result overcame those limitations. The casting was inspired. Jane Asher was superb as the woman professor, perfectly underplaying the role to make it more effective. And the irresistible Kelly Reilly plays both the young mathematician and her double, the space girl Andromeda. She has a way of mesmerising viewers, which was just what was needed. I have read some of the other reviews of this film and was shocked that some of them seem to have been so disappointed to see a thinker's rather than a thrill-seeker's sci fi movie. There are no exploding cars, machine guns, colliding stars, grey aliens, or terrifying ogres in this film, not even a single spaceship. When the initial TV series of this story was broadcast in 1961 (see my review), it caused a nationwide sensation in the UK. The astronomer and astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle's concept of a radio signal from another galaxy transmitting a code for the creation of an alien being blew the collective minds of the public. The usual BBC idiots wiped most of that series and only one whole episode, part of the final episode, and a few scattered fragments survived; a book of the story followed. The next year the sequel story was transmitted as ANDROMEDA BEAKTHROUGH (1962, see my review, as this series does survive in its entirety), and the book of that followed in 1965. The first series introduced the beautiful Julie Christie as the alien girl Andromeda; she did not yet know how to act, but everyone was dazzled by her looks. She was unavailable for the sequel, so the girl alien was played by Susan Hampshire. (I got to know her in the following year but she never once mentioned her recent adventure as a space creature.) To return to the newer film, another key ingredient was the well-measured and low key performance by Tom Hardy as the brilliant young scientist, who is the only one who can work the computer built according to the specifications of the signal. The film was excellently directed by John Strickland. The film is also a love story. And of course there is also some spying, an irate general, and an underground bunker. It all works, whatever some soreheads may claim. I knew Fred Hoyle pretty well. He shook the world up with his first science fiction novel, THE BLACK CLOUD (1957), which has suddenly become more relevant again in a surprising way. It needs to be pointed out that many of the aspects of A FOR ANDROMEDA have also become surprisingly relevant at the moment. I have no space to elaborate on this. But it all goes to show that Fred was decades ahead of his time in just about everything. And, by the way, there was no Big Bang. Fred was right about that too. The time is coming when everyone will be forced to admit it, no matter how much of a blow to their pride it may be to do so. Geniuses like Fred do not come along often enough.

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.

** Contains minor spoiler**

Despite being a remake of the 1960s BBC series, this comes across as an uninspired cross between Contact and Species. It is filmed using the typical cheap BBC Sci-Fi manner i.e. dull, grey, overcast and in a quarry. They spend the budget on the one "special effect", which is, of course, destroyed at the end. The story is unconvincing and the basic science is badly flawed (real time communication to Andromeda anyone?)

It tries to pad out a thin story line with the addition of a few extraneous few subplots, namely a love triangle, some espionage and the oh so stereotypical "government subverting science for evil" thing. Even Jane Asher can't drag this up from being a long, slow, and predictable hour and a half.