The Andromeda Strain (1971) Full Length Reaction
Added 2026-02-02 03:29:47 +0000 UTCA 70's sci-fi that goes HARD on the sci! Didn't expect this to be such a realistic portrayal of scientists doing science but it was cool to see. Quite a scary scenario and I wonder how realistic this actual scenario is. Has anyone read the book and is it any good?
Movie Runtime: 2:10:37
**Note: You can change the quality of the video by clicking the settings icon (little cog) and making it a higher resolution!**
Comments
The movie was Rated G, but they're showing teats and arses. For the record, PG was just instituted the year before movie was made. The exposed human anatomy wasn't the definitive factor back then. According to Grok: Standards were much more lenient back then, especially for non-sexual content:The rating system was brand new and focused more on avoiding government censorship than on strict "family-friendly" rules. G didn't mean "for little kids only"—it just meant "nothing that would offend parents for general viewing." Non-erotic nudity (especially brief, in a horror/sci-fi/medical setting) was often tolerated in G or early PG films. Think of it like how 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) had some implied stuff but stayed G, or how Westerns and dramas occasionally showed bare skin without issue. The MPAA prioritized overall tone: minimal profanity (just "damn" and "hell"), no sex scenes, no graphic gore, and a serious, intellectual thriller vibe. The nudity was framed as part of the sterile, scientific investigation, not titillation. Even the original posters had a disclaimer: "Rated G—but may be too intense for younger children," acknowledging the creepy dead bodies and tension. It was one of the "edgiest" G-rated movies ever, and forums still debate it as "the least G-rated G movie."
Carlos Stevens
2026-02-14 06:20:48 +0000 UTCNo monkeys or rats were harmed in the making of this movie.
Carlos Stevens
2026-02-14 04:50:39 +0000 UTCThis book and movie are special to me. This was the first "grown up" book I ever read. Really made a big impression. I also had great memories of seeing this movie on TV. From a "making of" video I saw they put the monkey to sleep with a gas and you can see right before they cut the shadow of a person moving in to save the monkey. That made me feel better.
Jay
2026-02-03 03:12:11 +0000 UTCLove these kinds of movies that focuses more on people trying to figure out the solution to a problem instead of action sequences! Another one I would recommend is Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970).
Stefan Klement
2026-02-02 23:11:25 +0000 UTCYou may want to check out the 3-part miniseries of Childhoods End from the Aurthur C. Clarke novel on Amazon Prime. It has the same kind of vibe as 3 Body Problem, and I enjoyed your reaction to that.
Joe R
2026-02-02 23:10:34 +0000 UTCMichael Crichton is primarily known for writing Jurassic Park, but as well as his other books directed many good movies of his own—a really important figure in modern sci-fi
The Fly
2026-02-02 17:32:54 +0000 UTCInteresting show. Just not the most entertaining for me. Just so slow paced. Doesn't keep my attention.
Mastervodo
2026-02-02 14:41:17 +0000 UTCThanks for another epic 70s sci fi reaction today Jen 😊 I remember the first time I saw this was on late night tv and the opening with the deserted town definitely left an impression on me. The rest of the movie does tend to get a little technical and you do need to pay attention to what's happening, but it's really well put together as it builds towards the finale. I've watched this movie several times, but this is the first time I've noticed Michael Crichton's cameo. When the doctor is just about to operate on the patient and he's interrupted by the military men on the other side of the glass, Crichton is sitting on the far right. He's probably sitting because he was so tall, all 6ft 9 inches of him haha. Another great 70s medical / science fiction / thriller, directed by Michael Crichton himself this time, is Coma. It's one of my favourite 70s movies with another amazing score by Jerry Goldsmith 😊
Darryl Low
2026-02-02 13:26:06 +0000 UTCYes, in the book, Andromeda mutated on its own both into and out of the dangerous conditions
Joel
2026-02-02 12:59:35 +0000 UTCThis was my first time seeing this movie. I liked it. Though I didn't understand why the stairwell had lasers in it. And did the resolution imply andromeda became non-infectious on it own, so the outcome would have been the same if nobody did anything? It's like an inversion of War of the Worlds. Jen didn't pick up on the polycron thing, did she? Odd, she usually doesn't miss that stuff. Maybe she was a bit bored, haha. I agree it was gratifying seeing most everyone being competent. Star Trek: TNG has that same kind of feeling. You know, 1970's film wasn't afraid to challenge the audience. Very different from now. I wish we got more films like this, even if the audience was smaller it would keep me more interested in new movies coming out. You know, rewarding you for paying attention and not insulting your intelligence. It's not a sin to confuse the audience every once in a while.
Noremac
2026-02-02 09:13:07 +0000 UTCSplit diopters were also used in Star Trek The Motion Picture which cinematographer on this film, Richard H. Kline also worked on. Douglas Trumbull also did effects for 2001 and ST TMP, and directed Silent Running and Brainstorm.
Rob Nichols
2026-02-02 06:54:25 +0000 UTCMom was a huge scifi fan, so she took us kids to see this on the big screen. I guess I was 11 or 12, and it scared me pretty good. As a kid the lab animal scenes really hit hard. The details of producing this film - before, during, and after - are pretty amazing and this is a fascinating look into that: https://youtu.be/f-qEeL-WU4A?si=hP82q8Rz1sxj4kgF Fifty years later it holds up pretty well. Change "space slime bioweapon" to "mutated bat virus bioweapon" and it all gets really scary. But I'm sure that never REALLY happened. We're too smart for that.
John DiGiantomasso
2026-02-02 06:45:22 +0000 UTCIt was vogue in a lot of movies from the 70s to use what are called Split diopter lenses. This is a special lens that can spit two sides of the lens into two completely different focal lengths, which enables something in the extreme foreground to be as as sharply focused as the extreme background. That's what you were seeing when it looked like a composite of the foreground on one side of the frame, and the background on the other. Also, it was fairly popular in the late 60s to mid 70s to do the trick where the storytelling was broken up into a collage of different rectangles on a black background. One of the more famous examples of this was The Boston Strangler. And, one last note, effects for this movie were done by the amazing Douglas Trumbull, who did effects for Close Encounters and Blade Runner.
Jessie Caldwell
2026-02-02 06:26:23 +0000 UTCGreat reaction! Hope the hard science didn’t put you off too much. 😁 I remember this being one of my favorite science fiction movies when I was younger. Yes, the book is a great read, just the right amount of “hard” science fiction I like. I’ve enjoyed most of Michael Crichton’s novels that I’ve read. I only wish that some of the films he directed would have been done by other more “visually-oriented” directors. Not saying that they’re awful but I often wonder what others might have done with Westworld (1973), Coma (1978) or Runaway (1984). Hmmm… it seems that in ‘60s and ‘70s science fiction films it was mandatory that all U.S. SECRET government facilities had to be built underground. We saw this in Fantastic Voyage (1966) as well, probably a few others I’m forgetting at the moment. 😆
Major Peril
2026-02-02 06:21:49 +0000 UTC
