The Andromeda Strain

:

Season 1
  • Network: A&E
  • Series Premiere Date: May 26, 2008
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
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  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 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.
  2. JudyT
    May 30, 2008
    4
    Mediocre, not as interesting as the original mostly because it was too convoluted with the old government conspiracy that went nowhere.
  3. KenH.
    May 27, 2008
    6
    For sci-fi fans there's some fun to be had watching this very improbable storyline if you turn your brain off. The movie stumbles several times with a boring "military conspiracy" plot that should not have been written into the story at all. Unlike some of the professional reviewers, I quite liked the science lab procedural scenes. Most of the technical jargon was at least trying to For sci-fi fans there's some fun to be had watching this very improbable storyline if you turn your brain off. The movie stumbles several times with a boring "military conspiracy" plot that should not have been written into the story at all. Unlike some of the professional reviewers, I quite liked the science lab procedural scenes. Most of the technical jargon was at least trying to be scientifically accurate. Unfortunately the plot goes off into total la-la land in the last 30 minutes and there's are some gigantic plot holes that would make almost any sci-fi fan frown. A missed opportunity for all those involved in making this film.… Expand
  4. raichah.
    May 28, 2008
    2
    In the last half hour, involving a dying character, a body part and a total disregard for the laws of gravity and physics, I burst out laughing. Other than that, this tedious talker had very little entertainment value.
  5. ConnorB
    May 29, 2008
    7
    While never quite growing suspenseful enough for a theatrical motion picture, "The Andromeda Strain" manages to transform Crichton's best seller into a believable, albeit far-fetched, joy ride.
  6. BobW
    May 27, 2008
    4
    Despite capitalizing on 37 years of improved special effects, the mini series actually regresses in story telling.
  7. TerryD.
    May 28, 2008
    0
    Let's see, other than the bad script, terrible casting, cheapoid production, and horrible direction, this is a darn fine mini-series. Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the definition of mini-series; a device to cram 2 hours of story into a 4 hour (or more) time slot. So this thing doesn't drag - oh no.... So what's all this mean? The remake of The Andromedia Strain is nothing Let's see, other than the bad script, terrible casting, cheapoid production, and horrible direction, this is a darn fine mini-series. Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the definition of mini-series; a device to cram 2 hours of story into a 4 hour (or more) time slot. So this thing doesn't drag - oh no.... So what's all this mean? The remake of The Andromedia Strain is nothing but trash, plain and simple. And what really amazes me is that the Scott brothers are aassociated with this turkey - they should know better.… Expand
  8. EricM.
    May 28, 2008
    3
    Horrible. Attempting too many subplots, unconvincing dialog and acting, and an embarrassingly unthoughtful plot line that tries to be politically edgy. Rent the original instead.
  9. DaveE.
    May 29, 2008
    3
    I'm feeling generous today or it (the rating) would be lower. Good actors /bad acting. Too many loose ends and second rate special effects. (The Birds? Ugh) Total waste of 4 hours I could have spent watching Twilight Zone reruns.
  10. JeromeR
    Jun 18, 2008
    2
    Awesome!
  11. TriciaB
    Jun 3, 2008
    3
    It sucked. It lacked the "gee-whiz" of the original (not to mention the book) by failing to explain ANY of the science taking place in either version of the original, and by substitutiing the lame notion that a wormhole somehow transported the bug to earth. Crichton made the science understandable in the book, and respected the reader enough to offer a challenge. This movie just offers an It sucked. It lacked the "gee-whiz" of the original (not to mention the book) by failing to explain ANY of the science taking place in either version of the original, and by substitutiing the lame notion that a wormhole somehow transported the bug to earth. Crichton made the science understandable in the book, and respected the reader enough to offer a challenge. This movie just offers an opportunity for a nap.… Expand
  12. BrianH
    Jun 4, 2008
    1
    This was the most pathetic remake I have seen. Some talented B-list actors should be embarrased. The green and red moving across the grass was lame. The line about acidotic being because of too much stomach acid is god-awful. The writers, director and producer should subject to watching this over and over again.
  13. Nemol
    Jun 5, 2008
    6
    Not bad for TV fare. I highly recommend getting a commercial free version. Infinitely more watchable. Benjamin Bratt as one of the worlds best microbiologists makes me roll my eyes. The casting blows. Maybe I've just known to many scientists. And obviously the casting director hasn't known any. Thank God the book was so good.
  14. BrandonS.
    May 28, 2008
    3
    What a disappointment! I tuned in because I am a huge Andre Braugher fan, and I enjoyed the original film version of this story. Unfortunately, the lead actors in the miniseries are abysmal, the writing is amateurish, and it's just a boring old miniseries. Big disappointment.
  15. PP
    May 29, 2008
    3
    Poor remake, should not have been made.
  16. JRC.
    Jun 16, 2008
    4
    After awhile you just need to stop indulging all those writers "What if's". "Ooh! What if the where attacked by sharks next!?" "Sharks? Their in an under ground bunker in the desert." "How about ducks then?" Just get on with the end of the show already!
  17. Tss5078
    Jul 6, 2014
    8
    In 2008, The Scott brothers, along with the master of the mini-series, Mikael Salomon, decided to remake the 1969 debut novel and 1971 film, The Andromeda Strain, written by famed Jurassic Park author, Michael Crichton. The film was in serious need of an upgrade, and while the new technology really enhanced the film, making it all the more believable, the updates to the story along withIn 2008, The Scott brothers, along with the master of the mini-series, Mikael Salomon, decided to remake the 1969 debut novel and 1971 film, The Andromeda Strain, written by famed Jurassic Park author, Michael Crichton. The film was in serious need of an upgrade, and while the new technology really enhanced the film, making it all the more believable, the updates to the story along with the new characters that were introduced, really did the original story a disservice. The basic story was not changed, just modernized, and for that we are very thankful. The story was always a terrific tale of Science Fiction and an early message about the damage we are doing to our planet. I like how the story was updated and I loved the technological advancements. What I didn't like was how much they changed the cast. They wanted to make them more diverse and I don't have a problem with that, but this is not a story that focuses on individuals, it's more about the virus, the technology, and the human impact on our planet. In that sense, I felt it hurt the series, but the technology enhanced it, evening things out. The original novel and movie were 4 stars, and so is the remake. It's different, but there wasn't much harm done, the way you often see in remakes. I think Michale Crichton would have approved.… Expand
  18. DJohnson
    Jan 6, 2013
    10
    epic
  19. billylenz
    Jan 7, 2013
    10
    epic
  20. emilypyre
    Jan 7, 2013
    10
    epic
  21. wearetheothers
    Jan 7, 2013
    10
    epic
  22. cweyland
    Jan 7, 2013
    10
    epic
  23. carlthefunnyman
    Jan 7, 2013
    10
    epic
  24. extrafizz
    Jan 6, 2013
    10
    epic
  25. averyjerryguy
    Jan 6, 2013
    10
    epic
  26. 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 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    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 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..    … Expand
  27. 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. 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    In 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.    … Expand

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

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
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
  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.
    Read full review
  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.
  3. Salon
    Reviewed by: Heather Havrilesky
    30
    A&E's The Andromeda Strain is just a very expensive, very cheesy retread.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »