Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

Borgarkeri A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

dane-92 This movie has a few exciting moments, but for the most part, it's just another Airport redux. For me, it was hard to get past its unfaithfulness to science, to reality, and in the case of the characters, each other. Every time they re-launched the space shuttle to go and rescue the stranded passengers, I just rolled my eyes and how implausible that whole thing was...especially when they launched it the third time, just two hours after the second mission had landed. The happily-ever-after scene at the end is of the pilot joyously embracing his stewardess mistress, while his wife drives away alone. That's supposed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy?

espike007 My problem is with the sets. Very little attention to detail except for maybe the cockpit. The headquarters in Palmdale, home of the Space Shuttle and many other famous aircraft looks like a lounge in a Holiday Inn. And the high tech equipment used for operating this supersonic aircraft? A collection of Radio Shack multi-meters in "test" mode. The Nasa control room was equally pathetic. Instead of a big Mission Control "theater" we've all seen in movies and documentaries, they shot those scenes at a simple air traffic control facility with standard radar screens. Come on, didn't Nasa offer any advice? Heck, there's a real Mission Control room right there at JPL in Pasadena. No, it looks like they wasted all their money on big name stars. Many do the best they can with script they were given.

nogimmicks The earlier reviewer who said that Starflight (or as my video copy is titled, Starflight One) should have been called Airport '83 hit the nail on the head. This is very much an Airport style disaster movie, albeit one with pretty decent effects (for a TV movie from 1983!) and a very original storyline. Its not great by any stretch of the imagination, but I found it to be a diverting way to spend 2 hours, and that is all I asked from it. I liked Lee Majors, and Hal Linden, but the rest of the cast was lacking. Dykstra's effects are very good for the most part, and I really enjoyed his model work and motion control shots -- very nice especially considering they were crafted for the small screen. If you like Airport and its sequels (as I do), then this hard to find TV movie is worth checking out.

coventry_2k I'll admit it: I used to love this movie as a kid. But that was when I thought anything was possible. Now that I'm older (and have seen the Airport Movies), I realize just how bad this movie really was.First, it should have been called Airport '83, since it has a nearly identical plot to the rest of the Airport series (especially The Concorde: Airport '79, where technical malfunctions screw up the Concorde).Second is the truly abominable acting. Lee Majors, the Six Million Dollar Man himself, stars as the plane's captain, who is married but shacking up with the head stewardess (Lauren Hutton, which explains why she is given a first-class seat out of the plane at the end). Hal Linden plays the designer and head engineer of Starflight One, who seems very uncomfortable in his role. The rest of the cast was too terrible to mention as their parts didn't even get off the ground, so to speak.Third are the obvious mistakes, scientific errors, and plot holes that are large enough to fly a Star Destroyer through. For example: -Starflight was equipped with a flange that allowed an airlock to be fitted over it. But if it was never designed to operate in a vacuum (like outer space), why have it there in the first place? -Captain Briggs mentions that everything still worked, including the engines. If the engines worked, and they were in a decaying orbit, why not just transfer to a higher orbit? -In this movie, NASA service techs seem to be recruited from NASCAR, since they are able to service and launch the Space Shuttle Columbia several times in two days (which is physically impossible, and why didn't that second shuttle help out sooner?). -It was mentioned that Starflight was not built with a heat shield. Bt at the speeds that it was designed to operate at, kinetic heating and friction would necessitate SOME kind of protective layer on the aircraft.-How come we never see the blonde female astronaut's face? -Starflight uses scramjets to provide thrust, but these engines cannot operate from a stand-still as they are shown to do; they must be in motion before they can operate. -An aircraft that is designed to operate at Mach 6 and higher speeds would not likely have such huge wings in proportion to its body, or even be spindle shaped; in fact, its actual design would most likely be a lifting body.And now for the good stuff: why I liked this movie. John Dykstra, who came up with the ships for Star Wars and Firefox, was the one who designed Starflight One; the plane, while not believable, still looks very good. Also, Lalo Schifferin's score was very good and dramatic. In all, about a 6 out of 10.