The Andromeda Strain

:

Season 1
  • Network: A&E
  • Series Premiere Date: May 26, 2008
Metascore
41

Mixed or average reviews - based on 18 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 18
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 18
  3. Negative: 8 out of 18
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on

Critic Reviews

  1. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Barry Garron
    80
    Each part has edge-of-the-seat moments, thanks to some admirable performances as well as several intriguing new plot twists that inject surprise at key moments.
  2. New York Magazine (Vulture)
    Reviewed by: John Leonard
    70
    This mini-series actually improves on the original 1969 Michael Crichton sci-fi non-thriller, which spent too much time in a fab lab in the desert and not enough inside the icky green virus—or outside, where the government was covering up its biological-warfare experiments.
    All this critic's reviews
  3. TV Guide Magazine
    Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    70
    This slick and often scary update presents a gripping medical mystery of scientific trial and error against a topical backdrop of bioterrorism, environmental activism and 24-style government conspiracy.
  5. Chicago Tribune
    Reviewed by: Maureen Ryan
    70
    This version of “The Andromeda Strain” is paced well; it gives Crichton’s story a hint of blandness but it also marches through the plot with no-nonsense efficiency.

Awards & Rankings

97
#97 Best TV Season of 2008
27
#27 Most Discussed TV Season of 2008
50
#50 Most Shared TV Season of 2008

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
5.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 40 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 18 out of 40
  2. Mixed: 7 out of 40
  3. Negative: 15 out of 40
  1. JerryG
    May 31, 2008
    8
    I found the series to be very interesting if not true to the original book. The parts about the cover-up was a definite improvement from he I found the series to be very interesting if not true to the original book. The parts about the cover-up was a definite improvement from he book. That being said th ending was so far out of left feild it was in another movie. But all in all you should give it a try.… Full Review »
  2. HotelCentral
    Jul 30, 2019
    5
    Had I known that Ridley Scott was involved in any way with the 2008 remake of the 1971 film directed and produced by Robert Wise, I wouldHad I known that Ridley Scott was involved in any way with the 2008 remake of the 1971 film directed and produced by Robert Wise, I would never have wasted the 10 minutes it took me to walk to the local public library to borrow the DVD for free.

    Now, you may ask how this miniseries could be so awful when it was written by a guy who writes plays that win Pulizers and Tonys. I have no idea. But I am aware that the distance between a writer’s keyboard and a director’s cut can be long and arduous and full of acrimony. So, for the purposes of argument, I shall leave the writer out of the equation.

    Basically, this is a film produced by people who do not understand music theory. A symphony, the experts will tell you, is a carefully coordinated combination of sounds and silences. Ridley Scott & Company obviously decided to do away with the silences, so that every instrument in the orchestra pit is blasting away at full volume without ever a pause for breath.

    The LA Times said this version of Andromeda is “overwrought and dull.” Entertainment Weekly said this “cluttered remake mires itself in . . .. inane backstories.” But let me clarify. Virtually every scene in the first twenty minutes includes some heart-felt family drama that accomplishes nothing except to bloat the total runtime. Plus the scientists at the heart of the story have lots of reasons to dislike and mistrust each other. Plus there are conspiracies. Wheels within wheels. Conundrums within enigmas enfolded by mysteries. Because, you see, everyone has their own personal secret agenda. And they aren’t simply out for themselves. They’re all out to get us.

    And of course the government should never be trusted.

    The government wants us to eat fruit? Why? What are they putting into the fruit to brainwash us all while slowly poisoning us too?

    It’s not enough to take it for granted, even at the very beginning, that the government is mostly concerned about preventing a biological catastrophe. Which is why the roster of characters provides us with all these military types who are agitating for dropping a nuke on the “quarantine area.” Because, you know, when you're making a miniseries it’s not enough to merely threaten the entire human race with a virulent new pathogen. Who’s going to fast-forward through a commercial break just to see how that turns out? So we need threats on top of threats. We need threats and threatening happenings going on all the time while still more threats are busily winging their way in from the horizon.

    And, oh, did I mention there’s a reporter? Who’s in detox? Who busts out of detox and wastes no time hooking up with his drug dealer, only to discover that MIBs are following him around and who knows what they might be planning? Because the reporter discovers his secret informant got murdered by a cop? And then the chief scientist at the super secret bio-lab calls the reporter on the phone and tells him some stuff about the super secret pathogen–and of course the NSA is listening to all of this, because they listen to everything, especially when ordered to listen in on some reporter, who, you know, is trying to reveal all the super secrets the government has.

    And, I should mention, there’s also a guy with a chainsaw. No, I’m not joking.

    Also, the US military (as portrayed here) has no problem with making US citizens “disappear” even on US soil. Maybe it goes without saying that the mils also have no problem with killing other members of the service, including generals, but there you have it.

    No doubt some years from now Ridley Scott will produce a “final cut” of this “miniseries” with some remarkable unicorn scene which only goes to prove what a “genius” he is.

    My suggestion? Don’t waste your time. See the 1971 film by Robert Wise. It’s not a great film and the tech is dated but it’s better than this schlock by far.

    If you insist on seeing this version then get a crossword or jigsaw puzzle, or the latest version of Angry Birds, to keep yourself entertained while the film-makers indulge in extraneous malarkey. Just, whatever you do, once you turn Andromeda on, don’t turn it off.

    They’re watching you..    … Full Review »
  3. johnslegers
    Jan 3, 2016
    3
    In spite of some minor flaws and differences from the original 1971 film, the first half of "The Andromeda Strain" was pretty decent. ItIn 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.    … Full Review »
See all user reviews »