User Reviews

I will give you two reasons for watching this sci-fi potboiler about a solar burst that threatens to wipe out all life on our planet: martial artist Mark Dascascos as a disgraced scientist who figures out how to save the Earth and Lou Gossett Jr. as a black (!) U.S. president who decides to go along with Dascascos' seemingly harebrained plan. I will watch anything with Dascacos, and being a Baby Boomer, I will always give Mr. Gossett the benefit of the doubt (IRON EAGLE, anyone?). The rest of this is pure crap. Terrible special effects, terrible dialog and way too much talking and standing around. Dascascos does not get to kick much behind in this one. So if you want to see Dascascos in action, watch the French thriller BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF.

I saw this last night and kept watching as there was nothing else on that was better. The premise of the movie was cool. Big solar storm ignites the atmosphere and has the potential of instantly wiping out life on Earth. However, the dialogue in the movie was horrible. The script was lacking emotion and intensity. The dialogue could have been so much better. The acting was alright given the bad dialogue. Louis Gosset, Jr. plays the president but has a small role in the movie overall. The score was horrible. The movie needed more intense music and more emotive dialogue. This movie lacked in intensity and would have benefited greatly from it. Unfortunately, the movie was pretty much on par with most small budget films made in Canada.

Solar Attack is about a large coronal mass ejection (CME) from the sun that threatens to ignite the atmosphere and kill everyone. The president must try and make the right decision and he only has one chance. The scientists and advisors are split, but the president errs on the side of caution and authorizes some dangerous operations. While this film deals with a lesser known extinction level event, the science is still dubious as presented. For the most part, the performances aren't convincing and seems rushed. I think this has more to do with the directing rather than the acting. Dialog is common with little snap. I doubt that even big name actors could have pulled this out of the C+ range. Special effects were nonspecific, general, and unrealistic.

SOLAR ATTACK is an extremely dull would-be disaster movie starring everyone's favourite low-rent action hero, Mark Dacascos. In it, solar flares threaten Earth and the usual team of scientists and government types have to team up to discover a way to combat the impending doom.

Unfortunately this is dry and stilted beyond belief, with no attempts made at realism. They don't try to engage the viewer's attention once. The actual disaster elements are limited to a couple of scenes of burning fireballs striking a handful of American cities but such moments, despite being entertaining, are few and far between leading to lots of inactivity and dull dialogue.

Cast-wise, Dacascos is the dashing hero but unforgivably doesn't even get the opportunity to kick any martial arts ass - he has one fight scene which is over in approximately two seconds! Elsewhere we get a tired-looking Louis Gossett Jr. playing the US President, and lots of to-ing and fro-ing on board a Russian sub during the supposedly thrilling climax, which is about as thrilling as me cutting my toenails. I think they were going for a HUNT FOR RED October style vibe but it falls flat, like the rest of this terrible movie.

Coronal mass ejections from the Sun are the gimmick the makers of this film use to get you in front of the TV (or worse, inside a theater where you may have paid to see it).

Extinction level events are the hack screenwriter's new refuge from the demands of serious drama and this is no different - except that coronal mass ejections are much less plausible as an extinction-level event than, say, impact by a large asteroid.

Apart from this most obvious flaw in the movie, we're also expected to believe that these coronal mass ejections somehow keep satellites from burning up on re-entry, so they can take out streets full of people (for example, if the Soviet spy satellite which scattered itself all over the Yukon Territory back in the late 1970s had done so over downtown Detroit instead, the carnage could have been impressive).

In this film, methane (and not carbon dioxide) is contaminating the upper atmosphere. Pockets of methane unaccountably ignite, causing atmospheric chaos for no real reason. And according to this movie, we can also dispense with all the money we're spending on ballistic missile defense - F-15 fighter planes can handle terminal stage ballistic intercepts just fine. Has Boeing been holding out on us?

I keep harping on the problems created by stupidity in plot details because they damage willing suspension of disbelief by the audience and make the movie hard to enjoy. The factual errors in the plot of "Solar Strike" aren't points on which reasonable men of science can disagree, they're a series of clinkers which anyone who passed high school chemistry (or even "general science") will have trouble setting aside in order to enjoy the film.

And the film needs the help. We enjoy "Society of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "Van Helsing" despite the campy Victorian "science" because the actors and screenwriters do a good job and the story recruits the audience as a willing conspirator.

The writers and director don't get Lou Gossett and the other "name" actors close enough to the goal to score. Even Lou Gossett can't sound intelligent when the lines he has to deliver are palpably foolish. There's nothing in this plot, the characterizations, or the dialogue to entertain.

This is a dismal, dismal, dismal waste of the viewer's time. You have to wonder if Syfy Network shows garbage like this because of a special dumb movie discount or something.

Solar Strike aka Solar Attack is a Disaster movie which was made straight for TV, if I am not mistaken. And you immediately can tell that the budget was not all too big to make this film. This clearly reveals when it comes to visuals and dialogues, which can be very cheesy at times. I liked Mark Dacascos in this role though and even if the film is pretty much generic, it was not as bad as some other ratings imply. If you don't take things too serious you might even enjoy this one. Bill Lake in his role as the Russian captain was even fun to watch. Louis Gossett Jr. (some of you might remember him in his role as Jerry from the gorgeous Enemy Mine) as the president of the United States? Well, in movies everything is possible. You might forget this movie soon after you have seen it, but that doesn't mean it is painful to watch or something. If you just want to kill some time by watching a disaster movie, there are way better ones. But also way worse ones.

Although I had to suspend disbelief a lot in this, it was worth it because the underlying story has heart and excitement. The production values are low and the scientific merit is questionable at best; but the screenplay is impressively ambitious in scope. And although the budget was extremely limited, some of submarine, fighter plane, and nuclear CGI effects came off quite well.

This definitely kept me entertained and I think it's quite underrated. Fans of sci-fi disaster films like Armageddon will enjoy this if they can see past the extreme lack of polish, into the endearing earnestness and ambition that lies beneath.

In the grand scheme of things, I'm such a fan of Joanne Kelly of late that her laughter is worth all the other scifi nonsense (it is scifi, after all) ... I normally use the TV as background noise (syfy or golf channels normally) ... so to hear her laugh brings a smile to my face as well. * * *

The movie hosts a wild premise, no doubt; I may not recommend it to anyone not a Joanne Kelly fan, but then again, I let it run and didn't change the station while it played ... (grin) Louis Gossett, Jr. was an added bonus ... I'm a big fan of his as well. This movie isn't of Star Trek quality, but, then again, neither is it of the quality (or lack thereof) of Evolver or Solar Crisis... (wink)

Until that time ... Earl J.

this one took a little time to get going, but once it did,, it was a hell of a ride.. where do i start. well the cme's or coronal mass ejection was a very interesting theory, although it was hard to try and understand it the way it was presented in the film, but interesting nonetheless. the sun catches on fire, and we have holes in our ozone layer, therefore different satellites are being knocked out of the sky, and great big fireballs are coming at us at lightspeed. this is you're typical disaster movie,, but this one isn't so schmoozy, and into all the character b.s. that does surround most of today's disaster flicks,, this one does tell a good story,, and does not stray off of the path to often. it was very good in theory, although the acting was a little wooden at times, but i would definitely watch this one again.

I guess this is totally enjoyable entertainment if you are uneducated and uninformed. Comments by other viewers are shocking "A good theory??? "The sun catches fire???" My god I hope that is not the level of intelligence being produced by todays education system. This movie is the biggest load of BS I have ever had the misfortune to witness on a TV screen. The kind of screenplay I would expect from an 11 year old and if it was an 11 year old writing the screenplay I would understand and say; 'Not bad kid. Keep on trying.' If it wasn't for the cheap production and obvious low budget I would say that this movie reeks of global elitist scare mongering for their global warming campaign to have even more taxes implemented on an already overtaxed population. But surely they could afford a much higher budget and overall better actors (With the exception of Lou Gosset Jr and a few others - indeed the fact that they can keep a straight and serious demeanor through out the film shows that those few actors really are outstanding in their craft) but I suspect this film is aimed to appeal to the truly stupid people. The types who get robbed by Nigerians offering them millions for the low registration fee of $300 and their bank account details..... I would recommend film students (screen writers, directors & actors) watch this film as an example of what they should aspire not to create regardless of how much money they are paid. I was going to rate this film a 2 but I opted for a 1 because a 2 would really be stretching the bounds of truth, reality and justice (just like this film does from start to finish).

I read another review saying this was only for people who were idiots. However, the movie was quite interesting and not too bad for a TV movie. It reminded me of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, only a modern version.

I was glad to see no horrible camera work where everything is jerking around and very amateurish looking. I would definitely watch this again.

The acting was quite satisfactory and I know that TV movies do not have the same budget as movies released to the theaters, this was definitely captivating.

The premise IS possible (as possible as the Van Allen radiation belt catching fire in Voyage). The effects were just fine. I found this movie to be entertaining and that's really what I watch a movie for.

great idea, great lot of things, just lousy writing and acting making it too hard to believe; the camera moves around like it was amateur and jumps back/forth to give it the low quality cheap effect. this takes 3 stars or points off the ranking, the camera that wont stay still thing that is...

i didn't watch all of it, so i missed some of the plot; it will be one of those movies so bad and lousy that its got some value, but its such a waste. I figured it was written by a chick trying to make the lines for the male actors, cause men don't talk that way. i came to this site to see who was the producer/director etc. lousy flop movies have a lot in common with this movie. and Im trying to only say whats true and nice.

A threat from the sun will soon burn up the atmosphere and destroy all oxygen on earth. Only Lucas Foster (Mark Dacascos) can predict and through the buddy system have a chance to save the earth despite shortsighted scientists, indecisive politicians, and an estranged scientist wife. We may even have to deal with the commies.

Can Lucas overcome all odds in the time-restricted disaster? Or are we all doomed?

Yes, we have had volcanoes in L. A., moons exploding, and all kinds of natural/unnatural disasters. Only renegade and misunderstood scientists can save us from our follies. This won't be the last disaster movie; however, it is up there with the best.

"Solar Attack" 2006 TV movie aka "Solar Strike"

The actors are OK. Stephen McHattie is great. Louis Gossett Jr. Is a very good actor He is likeable as the Prez. Much as I love the personality of Joanne Kelly, she really is a terrible actress. But she is just so darn warm and likeable. In spite of her wooden acting, I loved her as Myka in Warehouse 13.

There are several things seriously wrong with Solar.

The sets are pathetic! Wow! Talk about cheezy and cheap. And then, there is the technical stuff. I don't look for goofs and stuff like some people. I tend to sit back and just watch a movie. But the technical errors in this movie will boggle the mind of anyone who's made it through the 11th grade. You can't ignore this stuff, and it jerks you out of the movie.

The SFX are really bad. I understand budget movies, but to my way of thinking, if you don't have the money or skill to do it reasonably well .... don't show how badly you can do it . . over and over again. Just don't show it at all. The views of the solar flares weren't bad, because they stole them. The submarines weren't bad, because they stole them also. But, the floating wispy CME's were cringe worthy. And they kept doing it!

And then, there is the lame writing! Again . . Wow. It's horrible. This movie is an insult to TV movies! It actually hurts to watch it. And, yes, I watched the whole thing. It intrigued me where it was going. I can say that for the movie. I wanted to see how it ended.

The Bushwacker 12/29/2021.

Not too often can a television sci fi movie make a definite splash. Even without the high budget for amazing visual effects including for the New Zealand scenario, the plot, the script, and acting is solid making for a surprisingly consistent, believable sci fi thriller unlike most low-budget movies. Of special note is the balanced nature of the science, geo-political, military, personal rivalries that offers up a compelling, interesting, and captivating thrill ride. With elements of the more polished cold war Fail Safe (1964), disaster movies Deep Impact (1998) and Armageddon (1998), and the action thriller Hunter Killer (2018). If it weren't for the budget and the visuals, this TV movie could stand with any disaster movie out there. Definitely worth a look.

If I could have given this a half star I would have. We watch SyFy movies for laughs. We enjoy the bad acting, the awful special effects, the ridiculous-ness of it all. While this definitely had the bad acting (aside from Louis Gossett, Jr. he was fine for the couple of minutes he was in it...but why, Louis, why?) it had none of the fun. There was a lot of conversation, a lot of 'science', but no gratuitous violence that we've come to love from the SyFy movies, none of the laughs, just a bunch of serious talking about the why's of it all. I don't care, I just want to watch someones arm come off or some silly line I can quote afterwards. Skip it. Watch Megasnake or Frankenfish for some good quality cheese. This is boring monotony. The only fun we had was when they mentioned how big something was and we compared whatever it was to the size of Joanne Kelly's distractingly large upper lip. We fast forwarded the last 20 minutes to see the predictable ending and regretted wasting a Friday night on this one.