Wordiezett So much average

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Leofwine_draca SUPERCOLLIDER is another silly SyFy Channel disaster movie about a Hadron collider going wrong and accidentally opening up another dimension which causes the Earth to be affected by all manner of natural and not-so-natural disasters. This is a Canadian production filmed in Bulgaria which gives you an idea of how cheap it is.I've seen a lot of SyFy's disaster movies but this is definitely one of the cheapest and poorest-looking. I can think of absolutely no reason that any sane viewer would want to tune in and waste their time watching this. The characters are clichéd and the interactions between them are wooden and poorly staged. The special effects scenes consist of the actors looking on as a bad CGI effect plays out in the background or in the sky. There's never a moment of realism, drama, or excitement that convinces. The only actor I recognised was Amy Bailey, who played the British princess in VIKINGS, and she must wonder why she agreed to star in this junk.

ulrichburke It starts off LOOKING like it's gonna be a genre flick - accident happens, hero knows how to cancel out accident, there's 90 minutes of headless-chickenry from the other characters getting in hero's way, hero finally gets past them all and saves the day.... But then it changes into a VERY neat alternate-reality movie which - MAYBE SPOILER ALERT,DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE OR NOT - and this is the bit that impressed me - USES its low budget to great effect by having the whole 'city' filled with broken buildings, country living in fear of the weather. The atmosphere's great.SFX - now I think they could have done better with those, budget or no, I've seen no-budget movies (Humanity's End, Project London) with awesome SFX. But they're TV-passable. Also, there's a cellphone they could have used far better (NOT a spoiler, I hope!) But overall the story's great. The acting's NOT as bad as people are saying. The story's a lovely sci-fi story (roll with the science, it's not TOO bad) and sod the above guys, it kept me gripped the whole time. In fact I've watched it 3 times now and enjoyed it. If they redid the SFX using the Project London/Asylum/Humanity's End guys, they could have a minor cinematic hit on their hands (and used the cellphone better!) But overall a very respectable piece of sci-fi. You lot've been spoiled by Hollywood blockbusters. Asylum? Which I know this movie ISN'T - give them a chance. I've seen a bunch of pretty darned good Asylum movies in various genres (OK, a few clunkers, but all studios have those.)2 REALLY GOOD Asylum movies? 7th Voyage of Sinbad (cinema hit should've-been) and The Haunting (lovingly crafted atmosphere.) Those guys've got tons better since they started, don't knock 'em! (I own 30 legit. DVDs) ulrichburke

TheLittleSongbird And we're not talking about quite bad, but very bad. There are three reasons why Supercollider isn't rated any lower. The concept is a good one, plus it doesn't feel as stereotypical as it could have been in comparison to other relatively similar disaster movies. There are moments of nice locations, and the music is a step above the generic, overbearing and ponderous music that you'd kind of expect from a movie in the genre that is low on budget, it's actually driven and atmospheric. The photography and editing can be choppy however, around the halfway mark there was some real sloppiness, one too many scenes were too darkly lit and the movie looked like too often that it was set in a refurnished basement. The script does suffer from clichéd writing- though thankfully not as badly as other movies seen recently, particularly on the SyFy channel- and it is never here the sort of writing that grabs you or stop you from rolling your eyes. A lot of it was stilted and ham-fisted. The story does have a twist and it wasn't completely predictable from start to finish. What it was though was very dull and by-the-numbers with no heart, fun or tension, everything just felt indifferent. To be honest, I was losing interest by the half-way mark but being the sort of person who never judges a film without seeing the whole of it stuck, with it. And the second half didn't improve, if anything it was the opposite. The direction is far too slack with no attempt to keep things tightly paced and taut. The characters are barely developed, charisma-free and just don't engage. The actors look as though they didn't want to be there or that they didn't care for what they'd been given. Robin Dunne especially gives an expressionless and one-note lead performance. So to conclude, not terrible but another movie that joins the long line of movies that had good ideas but bad execution. 3/10 Bethany Cox

capcanuk This film, Supercollider.. there's just no other way to say it: it's terrible. The strange thing is, it's no worse than most Sy-Fy channel flicks, or the bevy of Asylum mockbusters.What really sets this film apart from the others is an absolutely painful-to-watch "performance" by the awful-as-usual Robin Dunne. His idea of acting is to stand slack-jawed and hope no one notices he has absolutely no expression. And yes, the "slack jaw" comment is for real. Dunne stands there with his mouth hanging open as though this were a valid acting technique. Of course, his "acting" here is no different from his painful presence on Sanctuary.The story is cheesy, which is OK. Films that are so-bad-they're-fun can be enjoyable. The effects are typical low-calibre TV fair SFX. So no surprise there. And even the basic premise of the film (based, as for all of this type of film, on very, very poor understanding of science) is quasi-original. I was expecting a typical "evil/stupid scientists inadvertently cause the imminent end of the world" scenario, where the hero gallantly saves the world through a series of increasingly implausible acts of heroism.No. This was actually sort of interesting, with a twist about parallel universes thrown at you right from the start. So points for taking a rather original direction with this script.But Dunne... /shakes head. The points we generously gave for script? Yeah, 10 points deducted from Gryffindor for having Robin Dunne on their Quidditch team.There is simply no way to really describe how painful it is to watch him struggle through this film. The other actors aren't really much better. No, I take that back. The other actors are far better than he, since they at least live up to Sy-Fy/The Asylum standards (not that this film was produced by either of those entities).I can't recommend this film in any way. If it's on TV and you don't have an appointment for a root canal, then take a gander, try it. See if you can get past the first hour. I actually made it through 90 minutes (after having taken a 20 minute break to do some laundry).You might think it unfair of me to lambaste a film despite not having seen the entire thing. Except Robin Dunne's "performance" fits into the category "cruel and unusual punishment".