Max Q (1998 TV Movie) User Reviews (16)

Not a good movie...

[thegeekboy · 4/10 · 11 February 2008]

The plot was not good.

The special effects weren't.

The acting was... not very good at all.

Like others, I felt there were numerous holes in the plot that you could fly, well, a space shuttle through.

I thought the ending was rather unbelievable.

By the way guys, about the "blow torch in space".

Blow torches have their own supply of oxygen (Hence the name "Oxy-Acetylene torch"). Two hoses run from the torch: One to an acetylene bottle and one to an oxygen bottle.

So a "blow torch" would work just fine in space.

Interesting way to kill two hours

[Jadzia79 · 6/10 · 24 November 1998]

This movie, essentially a modern-day _Apollo 13_, was entertaining in the tradition of Jerry Bruckheimer films. Overall, I enjoyed it, though performances from Campbell and Brewster were fairly flat. In my opinion, Geoffrey Blake was the standout, playing a civilian filmmaker sent to document the launch of the corporate satellite. He created a character that was easy to identify with and entertaining to watch. Overall, this is light, low-budget entertainment; people in search of a rip-roaring blockbuster would do better to rent _Armageddon_ again. But as made-for-TV movies go, this one is a standout.

Give it a miss

[rryland · 2/10 · 26 September 2004]

This film laboured along with some of the most predictable story lines and shallow characters ever seen. The writer obviously bought the playbook "How to write a space disaster movie" and followed it play by play. In particular, the stereo-typical use of astronauts talking to their loved ones from outer space - putting on a brave show in the face of disaster - has been done time and time again.

Max Q appears to have been written in the hope that the producers would throw $50 million at the project. But, judging by the latter half of the film which contained numerous lame attempts at special effects, the producers could only muster $50 thousand. To learn that the film was nominated for a "Special Visual Effects" Emmy has me absolutely gob-smacked.

I think a handful of high school students with a pass in Media Studies could have created more believable effects!

And the plot holes are too numerous to mention. But I will pick one out as an example. Now, I'm no NASA expert, but surely it's highly implausible that a worker attached to the shuttle simulator would suddenly hold a position of power in the control room when things start to go pear-shaped with the program. Surely there is someone more experienced at Mission Control who the Program Director would call on rather than a twenty-nine year old who has not been in the control room before.

The only saving grace for this film is the work of Bill Campbell. He manages to make a good attempt at salvaging something out of the train wreck that is this script.

I give this film 2 out of 10, with the above-average work of Bill Campbell in the lead role saving it from a lower mark.

Suck suck suck suck suck suck SUCK!!!!!

[gorbachev47 · 1/10 · 8 December 2005]

I'm sorry, but this really does feel like a modern day Apollo 13 knock-off. Totally implausible (at least Armageddon FELT like a comic book! This felt like a bad High School film project), acting was about as cliché as one can get, and....landing a space shuttle on an LA freeway? Come on. Seriously. Jerry, what were you thinking? And all the clichés: The pregnant astronaut's wife, the nosy reporter who gets in everyone's way, the stalwart manager with "Go Fever". And it's one thing to twist the laws of physics or politics or whatever to make an entertaining story, but at least make it GOOD! Fact and science were totally butchered for this. The space shuttle doesn't have fuel tanks in it's wings, and even if it did, it couldn't steer by shifting fuel between them (and neither could a DC-10).

If you like bad acting, bad storytelling, low realism, and cheesy clichés, this one can't be beat!

Unoriginal Space-flick

[fregert-1 · 2/10 · 5 September 2005]

This movie was pointless. I can't even call it sci-fi, since that requires more from a movie than merely taking place in space. "Max Q" isn't even set in space for the entire movie. The story/plot is unoriginal, the cast isn't anything to write home about, although it would be strange with a top cast in a mediocre film... Furthermore, it's not particularly exciting or well-told. At least it's evenly balanced in a low quality sort of way, in that nothing or no one stands out. Everything is equally bland. I usually find some quality in "space flicks", even if it's just 90 minutes of semi-lame entertainment bordering on low-budget pathetic, but "Max Q" didn't even give me that satisfaction. All in all , a complete waste of time.

OK, but not great

[bob the moo · 4 May 2002]

A space shuttle mission is partly funded by a television company, using it as a platform to launch a satellite and put a journalist on the shuttle. However when the satellite causes an explosion the crew are forced to try and repair the damage to try a forced landing back on earth.

From the opening use of stock footage and immediate title, you know you're in TV movie land. The story gives rise to plenty of emotional, soapy dialogue but it also creates some genuinely exciting scenes. The effects are mixed – it uses a lot of stock footage, but it also has some good effects. It doesn't compete with the more professional Apollo 13 film, however it's quite good – even if the ending is just absurd, blockbuster-style nonsense.

The cast are pure TV standard and don't sound real when the stress hits, however they do OK with the action stuff. My main problem with them lay with the fact that some of them seemed to be doing impressions of other actors – in particular Blake often looked and sounded like Christian Slater.

Overall, it passed the time – but it's not that great, watch a real film instead!

My God, how pathetic can a movie get?

[helge_iversen · 1/10 · 5 August 2002]

Stay away from this movie! It is terrible in every way. Bad acting, a thin recycled plot and the worst ending in film history. Seldom do I watch a movie that makes my adrenaline pump from irritation, in fact the only other movie that immediately springs to mind is another "people in an aircraft in trouble" movie (Airspeed). Please, please don't watch this one as it is utterly and totally pathetic from beginning to end. Helge Iversen

Probably one of the worst movies...

[SanderStrijbos · 2/10 · 2 February 2001]

What was I thinking when I rented this one? What did the distributor think when he copied the tape and shipped it all the way to Holland? That anyone really wanted to see this s***?!?

It's about some astronauts getting into trouble outer space (Apollo 13 flashback, but never even in the shadow of this fine film) and they want to return to home. If you act in such a film, you should be glad that you're gonna drift away from earth as far as possible!

This one wants to surf on the small wave of space movies in 1998 (Deep Impact and Armageddon), and this one fails everywhere. Deep Impact and Armageddon weren't perfect either (far from it), but they were at least worth watching once (and maybe one more time when we're all old). They gave some fun. Max Q doesn't. It gives irritation. Okay, okay. It's a TV movie, but does that mean you're allowed to come up with such a mess?

If you haven't choked in your own vomit by the end (by all the cheap drama and worthless dialogue) you've must have bored yourself to death with this waste of time.

It gets at its worst at the end when the space shuttle lands on... No, I can't 'spoil' this one (IMDb guidelines forbid it). So you have to see for yourself. NO! DON'T SEE IT (sorry), but rent a movie which is worth renting (like Battlefield Earth... just kidding!)

Probably the worst one I have ever seen.

Good Entertainment, that's ALL!

[av1kenobe · 7/10 · 28 December 2004]

Look, there are those who tell you "Don't watch this" or "It's the worst movie ever!" who in my opinion don't have a life! The bottom line is the movie is just plan good entertainment. Yes, the premise can be questioned at some points, but I have seen a lot worse than this one. As for TV movies, this is one of the better films I have enjoyed in a long time. I enjoyed the visuals, the acting was believable, and I was entertained. Some parts of the movie are far-fetched but that was most of fiction is. This is not based on a true story, and if Jerry B. had more time than 2 months to make it than it probably would have been better. Comparing it to Apollo 13 is not fair. This is fiction, Apollo 13 was based on actual events. I enjoyed this one more than Armageddon, which in my opinion was total crap!! If all you you do is pick it apart then you won't like it. This is worth seeing. I taped it off TV so I get to enjoy when I Like.

Surprisingly accurate

[TheHerald · 9/10 · 18 January 2002]

All in all, it's a shame this was a TV-only movie, since it compares very favourably to most other modern space-action movies. All the technical and political details about NASA and the shuttle seemed accurate as far as I could tell, and if the situation was a little contrived, this is hardly unique to this movie. All in all, a most enjoyable movie.

Total Crap.

[jaffakree340 · 24 June 2003]

I pity the cast of this film.

Apparently Jerry Too-Much-Testosterone Bruckheimer didn't get enough space action with Armageddon so he had to slap this piece of crap together in about two months and throw it into an empty timeslot on ABC for god knows what reason. This abomination is highly inaccurate, badly written, and a complete insult to anyone who knows anything about flying or the space program. NASA deciding the day before launch to send a reporter into space.......HA! Even the Russians wouldn't do that. And using a blowtorch in space? Who was their tech advisor, Baghdad Bob?

But aside from the technical neurosis, the film comes across as a cheap attempt at a modern day Apollo 13 and a tax shelter (probably left-over money from Armageddon, since they didn't hire real writers for that either). All in all, don't bother with this one. If you want a good modern space movie, check out Space Cowboys. At least that one didn't have you groaning every five seconds like this one did.

Bruckheimer delivers even on TV

[Plissken-4 · 10/10 · 17 January 1999]

Jerry Bruckheimer is the king of modern day, testosterone filled action entertainment. So what if his movies aren't going to win any awards for their thought provoking storylines. More than any other producer in Hollywood, Bruckheimer understands this...movies are meant for ENTERTAINMENT!! When so many are obsessed with heavy dialogue, shake your soul, change your life movies, Bruckheimer seeks only to entertain and thrill you. This is something he and his late partner Don Simpson have been doing for years. I thought Armageddon was the best movie I saw all year. Why? Because it was FUN!! It made the most of the experience of seeing a movie in the theater. Now since I mention the theater, could Bruckheimer pull of the same magic on TV? You bet. Max Q is an action packed thrill ride. It has good performances, especially by Bill Campbell, a fast paced story, stirring music, and special effects that surpass anything TV has given us in years. Sorry all you Star Trek and Babylon 5 fans. Those fx ALWAYS look computer generated. Not convincing at all. Max Q is far from original. It's Apollo 13 meets Spacecamp. So what? If people wanted only original material on TV, reruns would not exist. But Max Q takes those old cliches, shakes them, and gives them new life. I thought this was a great movie. It was even better than some movies I've seen in theaters recently. (Waterboy is the worst movie in years.) So I say welcome to TV Mr. Bruckheimer! I look foward to not only your future theatrical projects, but your films for TV. You never fail to entertain. It's just too bad more TV movies can't be as exciting as Max Q. **** out of ****

Most people would laugh.. but I think this is the best Bruckheimer-flick ever

[DePalma · 1 October 1999]

In a running time less than 1 1/2 h this TV-movie (!) packs the whole Apollo 13 concept and generates more suspense than Armageddon. It focuses on good, old MacGyver-style problem-solving and when it comes to an end it serves us a wildly over-the-top but fun emergency landing.

Only problem.... it has nothing to to with reality...but I don`t care. This one really surprised me. Best Bruckheimer for me. His big screen movies are mostly big misunderstandings of what entertainment should be.

Pointless and moronic in the extreme

[drxym · 21 September 2003]

Obviously the writers of this mulch had this brief - "Imagine Apollo 13 but on the shuttle with a sexy imperiled crew trying to get back to earth". If this sounds stupid, that is because it is.

Throw in some dreadful special effects, a low budget, a total disregard for reality & physics and a plot which consists of one over the top crisis after the next and a happy ending. The actors however do make the best of a bad situation, but this one is a total dud.

Things that were or weren't

[Tai Fang · 29 September 2004]

Though advertised as a 'film' (i.e. theater movie) in the TV guide, IMDb confirmed the obvious signs of a TV movie. Things I thought were cheap: the use of the solo e.guitar to emphasize heroism (this effect is so cheap that refer to it as 'the p*rn guitar') and a man's choir to emphasize determination, or something. The wobbly camera in the a-drift (but stable) spaceship. I don't mean the shots done by the astronaut, those looked believable by its light-weight camera jerkyness. Things that needed a little imagination: The blowtorch, not only to imagine where the oxygen came from, but also how a soldering device can cut through metal (and give off sparks doing so). And why astronauts shift their weight from one leg to the other, moving around in a shuttle in orbit. Things that could have been worse: The animation of the tolling spacecraft, and how the crew experienced and handled it. The dialog - a lot of it sounded quite natural. There's no obligatory heat or animosity in discussions, no improbable loads of wit. Some cheesy stuff like the grinning bum in the end, or the surprise of the motorists on the improvised runway. Good for a chuckle though. Containing a lot of standard ingredients, but also showing skill (camera, lighting... no artwork however). Errors (out of laziness, time pressure?) and fair accuracy.

Stupid!

[foxcow · 25 July 1999]

With knowledge of NASA and the space shuttle, I have to say that this movie was DREADFUL. It was slapped together in under two months with hardly any research and had even less accuracy than Armageddon. I find it shocking that they were actually able to land an astronaut (who I will not name) as technical advisor and still be so far-fetched. The acting was horrific, the special effects looked like something out of an FAA crash animation video, and some of the concepts (assigning a news reporter to the mission a day before launch, using a blow torch in space, and landing the space shuttle on an L.A. highway) are too far-fetched even for a 70's James Bond (Moonraker seemed more real than this). I find it hard to believe that this was made by the same guy who did Top Gun and Crimson Tide. Don't get a popcorn bucket for this one, get an air sickness bag.