The Cold Equations (1996)

I'm halfway through this movie, and I'm chanting 'Put Her Out' - 'Put Her Out' - 'Put Her Out'. This woman's character has more attitude that is ill placed for a stowaway... Would've made for a better, shorter movie. The extended blackouts between scenes were annoying also, I thought my TV turned off on the first one. The acting is above par for a B movie, but still struggled with this movie.

I'm a real SF fan-have been for 40 years. I've read the short story, heard the 50's Radio adaptation-both of those by their very nature avoided the problem that made me give up on this movie-which is that it was filmed with such atrociously bad (non-existent?) lighting that you can't really tell what's happening. Maybe it was intended to convey the dark storyline.... but all it does is look... well... dark. I kept expecting the actors to trip over stuff or ask for a coin for the electricity meter. At first I wondered if it was just a bad print but no, the shots of the backlit displays in close up were clear.It really was shockingly awful-which is a shame as what I endured visually was not matched by a similarly poorly delivered dialogue. But after a while of squinting and screwing my eyes up to see it (on a 43 inch flat screen TV!) I felt a headache brewing.After 20 minutes I gave up.

I read the short story, "The Cold Equations," decades ago -- but I just saw this movie for the first time today. And I thought it was outstanding.While I understand many of the negative reviews here, I think some are missing a few key points.When a screenwriter begins with a short story, s/he can't just make adjustments for the screen and be done with it--oops, a 30-minute movie, not what the investors had in mind. A bad screenwriter addresses this with padding; a good one adds foundation, details originally omitted for brevity, motivation, characterization, all that good stuff -- and maybe a subplot. If he's *really* good, he may explain or fix some things that really need explanation or repairs.In any case, the result is a new story inspired by the original, and possibly incorporating most or all of the original. Complaining that it is longer is sort of silly; of course it is. It has to be. And complaining that it doesn't have the punch of the original ... is unfair. Short stories *are* for punch; longer formats by their very nature have to be at least somewhat more leisurely. And this is a very intellectual and psychological story to begin with.** SPOILERS FOLLOW ** As one or two mentioned, the primary point of the original story is that sometimes, there is no way out of a dilemma; physics is not forgiving. Hence the title. The movie retained that in spades, and in my opinion provided just the right level of explanation as to why. And it's not simple, either, except to someone who really already understands the underlying physics. They even factored in the effects of time on deceleration; how often do we see that in popular media -- and done right? When I put this on my list to rent, I had misremembered the author as being Heinlein -- and it is worthy of him.But the movie added some justification as to *why* the situation happened in the first place. Engineers of our day would not, I believe, launch a spaceship with so little margin for error as was provided here. But our motivation is exploration and research -- and we really want our people back whole.Pursuit of the almighty dollar (credit/peso/what have you) on the other hand has often motivated stinginess and corner-cutting. Many excellent science fiction novels have advanced the possibility that the way we'll ultimately get outside our solar system is via mostly autonomous mega-corporations pursuing resources and the devil take the hindmost. And recall, if everything had gone according to the company's *original* plan, no-one would have died or even been hurt at all; it was being cheap, but not initially evil.The other significant part of the original story dealt with the psychological aspects of the situation. Here, the director and actors have their chances to shine -- and I think they did. One of the keys to good drama is that your characters change. And here they do, a *lot* -- but just gradually enough to retain believability. The high-pressure situation adds to that believability, of course.Initially, Barton (Campbell) appears a cold fish, and Cross (Montgomery) brash and ignorant -- annoying, in fact, as at least one other reviewer observed. Maybe they overdid those initial impressions a trifle -- but over the course of (their) hours, their interactions and the situation cause major changes (in his case, life changes). Unlike one reviewer who was happy to see her out the airlock, I was in tears -- and I both rarely do that, and also *knew the outcome before I began the movie*. It was well-acted and well-directed.One other thing -- fie on the IMDb summarizer for indicating that the cargo was a "vaccine" -- rather than just "medicine." He's correct, but that's a plot point, and you shouldn't know it until very late in the movie. The difference is used effectively, another correct but subtle incorporation of good science.Yes, the special effects are mediocre -- but it doesn't really matter; they're good enough. The story isn't about that at all.

This should have been a short 1/2 hour show. They tried to stretch a great sci-fi short story to movie length - and they failed. WARNING: SPOILERS Basically; highly efficient space ships are used to deliver emergency medical supplies to stop a deadly plague. To save costs, fuel is calculated precisely. All things are considered; weight of craft, weight of cargo, distance of trip, landing fuel needs etc.etc. A girl stow away is found on the ship. The only solution is to jettison her into space (there are no emergency space-suits, and no other spacecraft that may save her) Unfortunately, for the show to work you have to like the actress - but The girl (Poppy Montgomery) is completely unlikeable, and you will cheer when she is finally blasted into cold space and finally shut-up.