IMDb > Asteroid (1997) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Asteroid
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Asteroid (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 40 reviews in total 

35 out of 44 people found the following review useful:

US Aircraft LASER weapon defies all physical laws!

2/10
Author: André Grisell (qcw832q@tninet.se) from Stockholm, Sweden
7 January 2000

A real disappointment!

First, credibility approaches zero, as a trillion-ton rock, moving at 15 miles per second is stopped by the LASER beams of two small aircraft on earth. Has anyone read physics? It is as if a mosquito would stop an express train.

Meteorites rain on the same spot for hours, even though earth rotates.

Meteorites are seen entering earth's atmosphere several minutes before they hit ground. Are there parachutes attached to them?

In the two more well-known films on this subject, Armageddon and Deep Impact, the meteor is stopped by bombing it with thermonuclear devices - a completely sensible theory. I like Science Fiction, but 'Asteroids' isn't SciFi, the film violates every possible physical law, the creators treating the observers as imbecills.

Every building and vehicle in the film seems to be filled with gasoline - everything explodes (by the way - when will we see a film where cars and houses don't explode and diesel oil doesn´t catch fire?).

The second part of the film is an endless display of fires, roaming people and military vehicles. This would certainly put you to sleep were it not for the monotonous engine noise and fire sound.

And in every dramatic scene you are faced with the difficult and thrilling questions: "Will they find each other???", "Will the hero survive???".

I long for a meteor movie that blasts everything away, killing everyone including the hero.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Booooring!!!

Author: VicVega-2 from Odense, Denmark
31 August 1999

Down at the "Asteroid" studio: "Boy, oh boy, what shall we do, what shall we do? We have no ideas at all! Hey, why don`t we steal an idea from another movie but instead of copying it, we just take away the excitement, the good FX, the breathtaking action and, hey, who cares about good acting anyway?" I think that this monologue really has occurred, because it really describes how much this movie sucks. But the worst part about it was the length!!! Do NOT rent, buy or touch this movie!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

A disaster of a movie

2/10
Author: noelcox from United Kingdom
26 January 2003

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is a disaster of a movie. Basically yet another asteroid/meteorite impact film, it departs from the formula in the behaviour of one of the leads, FEMA Director Jack Wallach.

*** spoiler ***

FEMA Director Jack Wallach abandons his responsibility to the public and launches on an entirely selfish private rescue mission. Let us hope that his character does not reflect that of the real people in similar positions. As it was, he should have been prosecuted for criminal dereliction of duty, or some such crime. I have some sympathies for his predicament - a family member is facing death - but he had a wider responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of people who were looking to him for their survival. Really, this single point destroyed what might have been a moderately successful film.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

If they got their info right, it might HAVE been good

Author: Horormfn from here
12 May 1999

Boy, did they have their info wrong in this movie. I live in Kansas City, MO, and first of all, we don't have a downtown that looks like that. Second we have no dam. Third, this is a stupid movie. Although it had mediocre FX, it was still a bad movie. 3 out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Its a good story if the technicalities don't make you throw up first.

Author: spacepup from Socorro, NM, USA
27 September 2000

Being an astrophysics major, the first hour of this movie made me want to throw-up over the inaccuracies. Every scene involving a telescope was inaccurate for any modern observatory. ( Telescopes have been guided by computers for some time now, especially at observatories that get funding as the one depicted.) It gets better after that. and if you don't know a lick of science then it wont bother you anyway. The plot is pretty cheesy at times. (I don't think the FEMA director would really jump onto a burning building.) But it is a good story about human drama. I think they did an o.k. job portraying how people would react in a situation like this.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Disappointing

3/10
Author: ajnanou
29 August 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I saw this movie today and was hoping for something along the Armageddon line - okay, so this kind of movie tends to be predictable, but i think it's a guilty pleasure anyway. Boy was I disappointed. The story seemed to drag on and on - every time you think it's over, it's not (surprise surprise). You can almost see the producers' brains ticking to come up with some more plot to make up the allotted time. The premise is actually quite good, and believable, but the end result is poor. I felt no sympathy whatsoever for Elliot (the son), he was just an annoying brat to me. I also could not relate to the main characters - the firefighter's wife was pretty selfish, and the "romance" budding between Jack and Lilly has NO SPARKS whatsoever. Finally, is it really realistic to believe that after such a disaster, one woman would be able to get 1) a chopper 2) her own soldier and truck to go and look for her son and father when there's like ten thousand other people needing help? I think not. Waste of time, I didn't even stick around to watching the last five minutes.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

This is a Horror/comedy - not a disaster movie

1/10
Author: bananas-3 from Denmark
4 February 2006

The hilarious horror is how many scientific facts you can get wrong in a single movie.

As a first time watch this movie is absolutely gut-wrenching because of the huge blunders in the plot and the scientific "facts". I really ought to have spared myself by shutting off the TV but I could not. I was in denial - refusing to believe that so many stupid errors that any high school student could have caught had actually made it into a movie.

So I kept watching in horror. Then actually, later on I watched this movie again because I still refused to believe what my eyes had seen. When I watched it the second time i realized that my eyes and ears had not betrayed me and I was rolling on the floor laughing through most of the film.

The stupidity in this movie, makes it the kind of movie that makes the rest of the world believe that Americans are ignorant, unintelligent and need to fix their public schools. Not that I believe this to bee true although the script-writer falls into this category.

This is unquestionably the most stupid movie I have ever watched, and probably also the worst. So I give it a clear 1 out of 10 since I can't use negative numbers.

Although I must admit that this movie has a potential for becoming a cult-movie in the horror or comedy genre.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Don't even bother

Author: Greg Coit from Arcata, CA
2 December 1998

Part one was on the Sci-Fi channel last night, and I hope they don't bother to show part 2. This movie is *so* bad, the only reason I watched it was to see how much worse it would get. I wasn't disappointed. Terrible script, mediocre acting, implausible story line, inaccurate physics, this one has it all. I don't usually trash movies so harshly, but this one deserves it.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

By any standard, even amateur 16mm films, this one is stupid

2/10
Author: Asteri-Atypical from Orlando, FL
30 October 2001

This film has gained a certain infamy for stupidity. It's discussed as a laughing stock for the complete mutilation of science and even basic logic.

It's not a matter of a low budget. It's not that we are just being picky and expect it to be "too" accurate. I can accept a certain level of inaccuracy. This film goes way beyond that level into the absurd. It has about the scientific realism of spilling a bucket of water and having all the houses on the block carried away in the resulting flood.

There's no defending or rationalizing this level of stupidity. Even the "human drama" elements were mediocre at best and downright simplistic and boring for most of the film. The last half of the film dragged.

There's no reason a film should be made this poorly just because it's made for TV. It's not poor by comparison to other flicks or big budget movies; it's just poor. Even the good performances of some of the actors couldn't save this one.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Beyond description

1/10
Author: tuikie from Sneek, Netherlands
18 May 2009

Well, this is actually bad beyond the telling of it.

One would think that, with ending series as Firefly, SciFi would take a good hard look at anything they would spend money on. But really, after watching only 15 or 20 minutes of it, it's kind of obvious that this is really, really BAD. The fact that there's actually businesses that have payed for (some) of this cr*pfest, is a shock.

I'm really glad that I don't usually nitpick on movies; the amount of factual errors and goofs is beyond belief.

This movie deserves its 1 (out of ten), and that's actually pretty generous.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history