I think a lot of viewers wanted to compare this movie to Armageddon, especially since they were released so closely together. However, while the main storyline is similar, that's were the similarities end.
Just because Deep Impact didn't have everything going "BOOM" like Armageddon did, doesn't make it a boring movie. I was caught up in the narrative, the characters and the "heart" in this movie. There was substance in the storytelling. Duvall excels in leading a group of young, hotshot astronauts into space.
650 Reviews
I shouldn't even have to explain why it's better than "Armageddon".
lee_eisenberg12 January 2006
"Deep Impact" was one of two collision-related movies released in summer, 1998 (the other was "Armageddon"). Whereas the latter had no other purpose than to have Bruce Willis kick ass, the former was actually quite good. More than just an action movie, this one shows the human aspect of everything. One of the most interesting aspects is Pres. Tom Beck (Morgan Freeman). Whereas we usually expect black men in movies to be macho, this guy talks about his belief in God. I guess that the only thing of which I would have liked to see more would have been the shelters, but I guess that such an aspect would probably occupy an entire movie on its own. All in all, a really good movie.
Thoughtful, character-driven disaster movie
Libretio11 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
DEEP IMPACT
Aspect ratio: 2.39:1
Sound formats: Dolby Digital / DTS / SDDS
Mankind is threatened by a huge asteroid on a collision course with Earth.
Mimi Leder's thoughtful drama arrived in theaters shortly before the release of Michael Bay's "Armageddon" (1998) - a flashier, trashier riff on the same subject - and appeared to suffer in comparison with its outrageous counterpart, due to a script (by Bruce Joel Rubin and Michael Tolkin) which emphasized human drama over extravagant pyrotechnics. But DEEP IMPACT is enriched tenfold by this deliberate shift of emphasis, even though the film adheres to a routine formula established years earlier in such disaster pics as EARTHQUAKE and THE TOWERING INFERNO (both 1974). Here, the contrived melodrama of those older movies is replaced by a sincere contemplation of unimaginable catastrophe and the subsequent effect on mankind, highlighted by Morgan Freeman's authoritative presence as the beleaguered US president, who commissions a group of astronauts (led by Robert Duvall) to land a spacecraft on the comet and attach a series of nuclear devices to the surface.
Proceedings are hindered slightly by Téa Leoni's blank-faced performance as the TV journalist who stumbles onto the impending cataclysm whilst researching an apparently unrelated story about a 'philandering' senator (James Cromwell). Thankfully, the film is redeemed by its tremendous supporting cast, including Vanessa Redgrave as Leoni's proud mother, struggling to cope following her divorce from estranged husband Maximilian Schell, and a pre-hobbit Elijah Wood, playing the juvenile lead. It's to the filmmakers' credit that all these characters (and more besides) play vital roles within the overall structure, adding depth and resonance to an otherwise crowd-pleasing commercial enterprise.
The climactic scenes of destruction - involving a huge tidal wave striking New York - are brief but potent, precisely because of the human dimension stressed by Leder's intuitive direction. True, the outcome is fairly predictable, and there's a slight lurch into artificial sentimentality towards the end of the movie, but these are minor drawbacks in an otherwise worthy production. Fine music score by James Horner.
Aspect ratio: 2.39:1
Sound formats: Dolby Digital / DTS / SDDS
Mankind is threatened by a huge asteroid on a collision course with Earth.
Mimi Leder's thoughtful drama arrived in theaters shortly before the release of Michael Bay's "Armageddon" (1998) - a flashier, trashier riff on the same subject - and appeared to suffer in comparison with its outrageous counterpart, due to a script (by Bruce Joel Rubin and Michael Tolkin) which emphasized human drama over extravagant pyrotechnics. But DEEP IMPACT is enriched tenfold by this deliberate shift of emphasis, even though the film adheres to a routine formula established years earlier in such disaster pics as EARTHQUAKE and THE TOWERING INFERNO (both 1974). Here, the contrived melodrama of those older movies is replaced by a sincere contemplation of unimaginable catastrophe and the subsequent effect on mankind, highlighted by Morgan Freeman's authoritative presence as the beleaguered US president, who commissions a group of astronauts (led by Robert Duvall) to land a spacecraft on the comet and attach a series of nuclear devices to the surface.
Proceedings are hindered slightly by Téa Leoni's blank-faced performance as the TV journalist who stumbles onto the impending cataclysm whilst researching an apparently unrelated story about a 'philandering' senator (James Cromwell). Thankfully, the film is redeemed by its tremendous supporting cast, including Vanessa Redgrave as Leoni's proud mother, struggling to cope following her divorce from estranged husband Maximilian Schell, and a pre-hobbit Elijah Wood, playing the juvenile lead. It's to the filmmakers' credit that all these characters (and more besides) play vital roles within the overall structure, adding depth and resonance to an otherwise crowd-pleasing commercial enterprise.
The climactic scenes of destruction - involving a huge tidal wave striking New York - are brief but potent, precisely because of the human dimension stressed by Leder's intuitive direction. True, the outcome is fairly predictable, and there's a slight lurch into artificial sentimentality towards the end of the movie, but these are minor drawbacks in an otherwise worthy production. Fine music score by James Horner.
Very moving.
brijess-212 July 1999
I found Deep Impact to be a very good "study" on how we has humans, may react to an E.L.E. (see this movie for details on that.) The special effects were good, but the best thing about this movie was the focus on the characters. This wasn't loud and stupid as "that other asteroid movie." This film will entertain you and mostly, touch your heart. You actually feel the doom that is about to reach these people, and to me, that is good film making.
About the only thing I could pick on would be the performance of Téa Leoni. To me, she was never convincing. She seemed down and depressed all of the time, even when she was doing the news. Very odd performance.
I give this film a B+
About the only thing I could pick on would be the performance of Téa Leoni. To me, she was never convincing. She seemed down and depressed all of the time, even when she was doing the news. Very odd performance.
I give this film a B+
Much better than Armageddon
akshatmahajan22 June 2021
Both Deep Impact and Armageddon were released in the same year 1998 and both had almost same story but I enjoyed Deep Impact more.
The cast played their characters nicely. The direction was good. The running time was proper 2 hour and not like Armageddon which sas unnecessarily stretched to 2hr 30min. The pacing was also proper, you will not get bored. The logic in the story was far better than Armageddon.
It's hard to believe how did this movie grossed less than Armageddon. It's box-office collection is proof that movie is underrated. Overall, give it a try. You eill enjoy it.
The cast played their characters nicely. The direction was good. The running time was proper 2 hour and not like Armageddon which sas unnecessarily stretched to 2hr 30min. The pacing was also proper, you will not get bored. The logic in the story was far better than Armageddon.
It's hard to believe how did this movie grossed less than Armageddon. It's box-office collection is proof that movie is underrated. Overall, give it a try. You eill enjoy it.
better of the two
jllb1711 August 1998
"Deep Impact" certainly ranks as the better of the two comet/asteroid disaster movies this summer. Unlike in "Armageddon," here you actually care about the characters, and I didn't find myself looking at my watch to see when the movie would be over. If there was one way to improve this movie, it would have been to show more scenes of Morgan Freeman (the best movie president in a while) and focus less on the plotline of the reporter and her father. Overall, though, a very entertaining film, which cannot be said for "Armageddon."
Flawed But Better Than That Comet Movie With Bruce Willis
Theo Robertson29 May 2004
Why is it that everytime someone had an idea for a movie in the late 1990s someone at another studio decided to bring out a similar movie ? DANTE'S PEAK and VOLCANO both came out at the same and both featured volcanoes suddenly exploding into life , and there's several other examples of this unimaginative " let's makes a movie similar to a studio rival " movie pitch from the 1990s . Perhaps the best example is DEEP IMPACT and Armageddon which feature a giant comet going to collide with planet Earth . I should point out though that both movies were pitched to different audiences . Armageddon is marketed to the unthinking macho American audience . It stars Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck , is directed by Michael Bay and is produced by Jerry Bruckheimer so unsurprisingly it's a pile of expensive effects laden bubblegum . DEEP IMPACT came out a couple of months previously and is by far the better movie . However it is flawed
I think the problem with DEEP IMPACT is that it's probably produced to appeal to women . The main protagonist is female and there's several sub plots involving family issues ( " Gee Mom I hope the end of the world doesn't ruin my weekend " ) , oh and a bit of romance too . This doesn't ruin the movie but I did find the heroine's trembling lip and tears in her eyes in every emotional scene grating and the movie does lapse into terrible mawkishness several times . I also found the concept of a " lottery draw " to send people into deep bunkers where they have a chance of surviving the apocalypse unconvincing . Yeah right I sure the American president is going to give trailer trash and red necks to chance to come live with him . America might be a classless society but it's not that classless and considering Bill Clinton ( Often described as " America's first black president ) was in the White House at the time do we think that either men or ugly women would have a chance of being selected ? About as much chance as Bill inviting Hilary into the bunker I imagine
There are a few good points about the movie that stops it becoming an overproduced disease of the week movie . One thing is the cast , Armageddon had Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck while DEEP IMPACT has Morgan Freeman and Robert Duvall . Do I have to spell out what movie has the better cast ? Okay DEEP IMPACT isn't a career highpoint for either actor but they do bring serious class to the production and there's lots of familiar faces on screen like Frodo Baggins and the bad guy from MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 . The special effects are very good and there is one absolutely superb scene on a highway where thousands of bickering people are in gridlock , they slowly stop arguing and fighting amongst themselves as they look up and see the meteor pass overhead . On paper this scene might have seemed ineffective but on screen it's breath taking with a deep emotional impact
So in my humble opinion DEEP IMPACT is the better of the two movies and is probably the best comet/meteor movie ever made . It is flawed and could have been better especially if the producers cut out of the chick flick stuff but a good cast and some good scenes stop it from being worse than it could have been
I think the problem with DEEP IMPACT is that it's probably produced to appeal to women . The main protagonist is female and there's several sub plots involving family issues ( " Gee Mom I hope the end of the world doesn't ruin my weekend " ) , oh and a bit of romance too . This doesn't ruin the movie but I did find the heroine's trembling lip and tears in her eyes in every emotional scene grating and the movie does lapse into terrible mawkishness several times . I also found the concept of a " lottery draw " to send people into deep bunkers where they have a chance of surviving the apocalypse unconvincing . Yeah right I sure the American president is going to give trailer trash and red necks to chance to come live with him . America might be a classless society but it's not that classless and considering Bill Clinton ( Often described as " America's first black president ) was in the White House at the time do we think that either men or ugly women would have a chance of being selected ? About as much chance as Bill inviting Hilary into the bunker I imagine
There are a few good points about the movie that stops it becoming an overproduced disease of the week movie . One thing is the cast , Armageddon had Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck while DEEP IMPACT has Morgan Freeman and Robert Duvall . Do I have to spell out what movie has the better cast ? Okay DEEP IMPACT isn't a career highpoint for either actor but they do bring serious class to the production and there's lots of familiar faces on screen like Frodo Baggins and the bad guy from MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2 . The special effects are very good and there is one absolutely superb scene on a highway where thousands of bickering people are in gridlock , they slowly stop arguing and fighting amongst themselves as they look up and see the meteor pass overhead . On paper this scene might have seemed ineffective but on screen it's breath taking with a deep emotional impact
So in my humble opinion DEEP IMPACT is the better of the two movies and is probably the best comet/meteor movie ever made . It is flawed and could have been better especially if the producers cut out of the chick flick stuff but a good cast and some good scenes stop it from being worse than it could have been
The title is a lie
platypus221 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I recently re-watched Deep Impact, for the first time since its release. I remembered enjoying it the first time quite a lot and wanted to see how it held up after all those years. Verdict? I honestly can't imagine what I was thinking that first time and how I could ever call this film quality entertainment. Most likely my teenage brain stopped at "giant asteroid destroying Earth - sooooo cool!", because this film does not have much to offer beyond that.
With a global disaster movie you can go one of three basic ways. One, you can get serious and make it all about the big picture - realistic what-ifs, governments' reactions, impact on society, scientific background. Two, you can make it all about the characters - focus on a small group, real and interesting enough to make the audience genuinely care about them. Three, go for pure popcorn entertainment, with great production values and a huge spectacle that never takes itself too seriously. Combinations are possible too - my favorite example is World War Z (the book, not the film), which skillfully combines the first two approaches.
Deep Impact is a complete failure, no matter which template you compare it to.
The big picture part is unbelievably stupid, as if the writers had a single afternoon to come up with reasonably realistic ways this scenario might play out, and on top of that never bothered to talk to anyone who deals with actual real world disasters. The idea of everyone just going about their daily lives up to the last moment instead of putting a sizable portion of the nation's resources into preparing the majority of the population for the aftermath is too dumb for words. The idea of millions of people dying in the first impact because despite knowing months in advance about it, no one thought to evacuate the coast may be even worse.
The characters are equally awful. First of all, there are too many of them. There's only time for a brief introduction and as a result no one goes beyond a cardboard cutout with a couple of ham-handedly presented personality traits. The ones we're supposed to care about - Jenny and Leo with their families - are merely devices for generating artificial drama. Their idiotic actions are supposed to make the audience sympathize with them and feel their emotions. In my case they made me wish the tsunami would hurry up and wash them away already (with the sole exception of Jenny's mother, who I thought was rather interesting and well played).
Finally, Deep Impact is too cheap, too serious and too boring to be successful in the last category - pure, silly fun. The special effects are third rate, the humor non-existent and the plot slowly stumbles towards one of the least satisfying endings in the history of the disaster film genre. The climax should either tie up all the parts of the plot into a nice, satisfying package, or leave us wondering about what happens next - on the big, planetary scale, as well as with the characters we've come to care about. In Deep Impact the character are either killed by their unfathomable stupidity pretending to be deep sentiment and romantic natures, or they simply disappear, their future fate unknown and unimportant (though I imagine quite a lot of regrets in their future, concerning the needless deaths of their loved ones). The big picture is narrowed down to an optimistic speech and the image of reconstruction of a single part of a single country (which seems to stand for the entirety of human race in this case).
Ultimately the film that features one of the greatest natural disasters imaginable ends not with a bang, but with a disinterested whimper. Which could be considered quite an achievement, but not the kind I would give any stars for.
With a global disaster movie you can go one of three basic ways. One, you can get serious and make it all about the big picture - realistic what-ifs, governments' reactions, impact on society, scientific background. Two, you can make it all about the characters - focus on a small group, real and interesting enough to make the audience genuinely care about them. Three, go for pure popcorn entertainment, with great production values and a huge spectacle that never takes itself too seriously. Combinations are possible too - my favorite example is World War Z (the book, not the film), which skillfully combines the first two approaches.
Deep Impact is a complete failure, no matter which template you compare it to.
The big picture part is unbelievably stupid, as if the writers had a single afternoon to come up with reasonably realistic ways this scenario might play out, and on top of that never bothered to talk to anyone who deals with actual real world disasters. The idea of everyone just going about their daily lives up to the last moment instead of putting a sizable portion of the nation's resources into preparing the majority of the population for the aftermath is too dumb for words. The idea of millions of people dying in the first impact because despite knowing months in advance about it, no one thought to evacuate the coast may be even worse.
The characters are equally awful. First of all, there are too many of them. There's only time for a brief introduction and as a result no one goes beyond a cardboard cutout with a couple of ham-handedly presented personality traits. The ones we're supposed to care about - Jenny and Leo with their families - are merely devices for generating artificial drama. Their idiotic actions are supposed to make the audience sympathize with them and feel their emotions. In my case they made me wish the tsunami would hurry up and wash them away already (with the sole exception of Jenny's mother, who I thought was rather interesting and well played).
Finally, Deep Impact is too cheap, too serious and too boring to be successful in the last category - pure, silly fun. The special effects are third rate, the humor non-existent and the plot slowly stumbles towards one of the least satisfying endings in the history of the disaster film genre. The climax should either tie up all the parts of the plot into a nice, satisfying package, or leave us wondering about what happens next - on the big, planetary scale, as well as with the characters we've come to care about. In Deep Impact the character are either killed by their unfathomable stupidity pretending to be deep sentiment and romantic natures, or they simply disappear, their future fate unknown and unimportant (though I imagine quite a lot of regrets in their future, concerning the needless deaths of their loved ones). The big picture is narrowed down to an optimistic speech and the image of reconstruction of a single part of a single country (which seems to stand for the entirety of human race in this case).
Ultimately the film that features one of the greatest natural disasters imaginable ends not with a bang, but with a disinterested whimper. Which could be considered quite an achievement, but not the kind I would give any stars for.
See This Movie.
JZeth2 June 2005
Deep Impact is a well-done and thoughtful film that powerfully delivers the human touch in its pondering of the age-old question: What if extinction was just around the corner?
Deep Impact is most often compared to its death-comet partner from the summer of '98, Armageddon. Deep Impact is a drama; Armageddon is an action film, and delivers just what we would expect from an action film, namely, over-the-top characters, a simplistic storyline, and an abundance of special effects. Deep Impact presents just the opposite: Characters that are notably human, several dovetailed story lines, and it saves the special effects (which are very good) for the movie's climax.
Armageddon did better at the box office primarily because it was much more hyped, and because it featured an A-list star (Bruce Willis) while Deep Impact did not. Its enjoyability, though, is very limited: If you are not a fan of the action genre, you will not like Armageddon. Deep Impact is the substantially better film and reaches out to the viewer to a far deeper degree.
As you certainly know, the plot revolves around the fact that a seven-mile-wide comet is on a collision course with earth, and if it makes impact it will represent an Extinction Level Event (i.e., the death of all life on the planet). Having about a year and a half's notice of this, the U.S. and Russian governments send a spacecraft, the Messiah, to destroy the comet by drilling nuclear warheads into its core and then detonating. The movie focuses on three primary story lines: 1. The young reporter Jenny Lerner (Tea Leoni) and her struggles with her career and her parents; 2. The high-school couple of Leo Biederman (who discovered the comet; Elijah Wood) and Sarah (Leelee Sobieski); 3. The crew of the Messiah.
All three story lines are done in such a way that the viewer easily sympathizes with the very believable characters. The best done of the three is the spaceship's crew, although the most time is spent with Jenny. They all suffer from the film's only notable problem: The story lines seem somewhat rushed. Considering its broad scope, Deep Impact clearly would benefit from an extra 30 minutes to develop, especially with the underdone angle with Leo and Sarah, but the directors evidently decided two hours was all they could use.
Deep Impact, as I mentioned, lacks an A-list star, but it does feature superb performances from two of the best supporting actors of our generation: Robert Duvall (Spurgeon Tanner, captain of the spaceship) and Morgan Freeman (Tom Beck, the U.S. President). Duvall is definitely the standout of the film with an A+ performance as Tanner.
As for the other actors/actresses: Tea Leoni (playing Jenny Lerner) gets the most face time in the film and delivers a believably good performance. Maximillian Schell as Jenny's father is the one notable casting mistake; I'm not sure what they were going for with him, but they could have done better. Venessa Redgrave does well as Jenny's divorcée mother.
Elijah Wood (now a star but at the time just an up-and-comer) works very well as the teenage Leo Biederman, and Leelee Sobieski as his girlfriend Sarah gives us as good a performance as we can expect, considering how woefully underdeveloped her character is. The film arguably devotes a bit too much time to Jenny and her father and not enough to Leo and Sarah.
If you haven't seen this movie yet, it should be at the top of your must-see list. The film moves at a good pace (if a bit fast), grabs your attention at the beginning and holds it throughout, and it features a truly exceptional final 20-25 minutes. What stands out most about this movie is its human touch and sensitivity. It manages to probe an impressive array of human emotions in two hours' time, and it will leave you with plenty to think about -- although it probably will not leave you with dry eyes. There are precisely three movies I have seen that caused the room to get dusty around me (if you get my drift), and this is one of them.
In conclusion: See this movie.
Deep Impact is most often compared to its death-comet partner from the summer of '98, Armageddon. Deep Impact is a drama; Armageddon is an action film, and delivers just what we would expect from an action film, namely, over-the-top characters, a simplistic storyline, and an abundance of special effects. Deep Impact presents just the opposite: Characters that are notably human, several dovetailed story lines, and it saves the special effects (which are very good) for the movie's climax.
Armageddon did better at the box office primarily because it was much more hyped, and because it featured an A-list star (Bruce Willis) while Deep Impact did not. Its enjoyability, though, is very limited: If you are not a fan of the action genre, you will not like Armageddon. Deep Impact is the substantially better film and reaches out to the viewer to a far deeper degree.
As you certainly know, the plot revolves around the fact that a seven-mile-wide comet is on a collision course with earth, and if it makes impact it will represent an Extinction Level Event (i.e., the death of all life on the planet). Having about a year and a half's notice of this, the U.S. and Russian governments send a spacecraft, the Messiah, to destroy the comet by drilling nuclear warheads into its core and then detonating. The movie focuses on three primary story lines: 1. The young reporter Jenny Lerner (Tea Leoni) and her struggles with her career and her parents; 2. The high-school couple of Leo Biederman (who discovered the comet; Elijah Wood) and Sarah (Leelee Sobieski); 3. The crew of the Messiah.
All three story lines are done in such a way that the viewer easily sympathizes with the very believable characters. The best done of the three is the spaceship's crew, although the most time is spent with Jenny. They all suffer from the film's only notable problem: The story lines seem somewhat rushed. Considering its broad scope, Deep Impact clearly would benefit from an extra 30 minutes to develop, especially with the underdone angle with Leo and Sarah, but the directors evidently decided two hours was all they could use.
Deep Impact, as I mentioned, lacks an A-list star, but it does feature superb performances from two of the best supporting actors of our generation: Robert Duvall (Spurgeon Tanner, captain of the spaceship) and Morgan Freeman (Tom Beck, the U.S. President). Duvall is definitely the standout of the film with an A+ performance as Tanner.
As for the other actors/actresses: Tea Leoni (playing Jenny Lerner) gets the most face time in the film and delivers a believably good performance. Maximillian Schell as Jenny's father is the one notable casting mistake; I'm not sure what they were going for with him, but they could have done better. Venessa Redgrave does well as Jenny's divorcée mother.
Elijah Wood (now a star but at the time just an up-and-comer) works very well as the teenage Leo Biederman, and Leelee Sobieski as his girlfriend Sarah gives us as good a performance as we can expect, considering how woefully underdeveloped her character is. The film arguably devotes a bit too much time to Jenny and her father and not enough to Leo and Sarah.
If you haven't seen this movie yet, it should be at the top of your must-see list. The film moves at a good pace (if a bit fast), grabs your attention at the beginning and holds it throughout, and it features a truly exceptional final 20-25 minutes. What stands out most about this movie is its human touch and sensitivity. It manages to probe an impressive array of human emotions in two hours' time, and it will leave you with plenty to think about -- although it probably will not leave you with dry eyes. There are precisely three movies I have seen that caused the room to get dusty around me (if you get my drift), and this is one of them.
In conclusion: See this movie.
Intelligent and entertaining
Ioreka25 September 2021
Not entirely believable, but it's entertaining and has an intelligence to it. Somewhat over sentimental in places, and a few 'honestly, no one would do that' moments of implausibility. But a good cast keeps the action moving along, and it engages right through to the end. Possibly about 20 minutes too long.
Boring
harryplinkett1420 August 2018
How do you make the apocalypse boring? Have a bunch of dull characters do dull things. You have a tv reporter who looks bored all the time, you have a bunch of astronauts led by a sedated Robert Duvall, you have a non-existing romance between Frodo and some girl, and you have Morgan Freeman saying stupid things and not looking one bit convincing about anything he does. The screenplay is moronic and it's organized in a way that shatters what little there is in terms of the audience's investment. There is no point to this film, it fails even as brainless entertainment.
Superior to 'Armageddon'
cosmic_quest26 August 2006
It seems 1998 was the year Hollywood turned to the idea of the world being decimated by objects from outer space to fuel their disaster films. Both 'Deep Impact' and 'Armageddon' were released in that year but while I did enjoy the thrill and special effects of the latter film, I find 'Deep Impact' the superior of the two.
The film begins when a teenage amateur astronomer discover a comet on a direct collision course for the Earth. The world is then thrown into turmoil has humanity has to accept their possible extinction. While NASA sends a shuttle up with the intention to try to blow the comet to bits, the US government selects people to be saved in a cave they are building to withstand the event. Focusing on various unrelated characters, the film shows how people react differently to the destruction of all that they know.
The brilliant cast, including Morgan Freeman, Vanessa Redgrave, Robert Devall, Elijah Wood, Ron Eldard and many others, all given great depictions of their characters. It is because of their ability to bring their respective characters to life that 'Deep Impact' stands up so well as it is a very emotional and character driven story, as opposed to 'Armageddon', which relied much more on humour and special effects to sell it. Téa Leoni is the only one who doesn't shine through like her co-stars as her performance is quite bland and doesn't capture her character's turbulent emotions. However, as the rest of the cast give great performances, it's easy to overlook her. And even though there is much attention given to establishing the characters doesn't mean the film skimps when it comes to the special effects. Both the scenes in space and those on Earth when the comet hits the planet are well-handled visually. It features some of the best special effects of planetary annihilation that I've ever seen (and I'm a big fan of these disaster flicks).
What makes 'Deep Impact' rather unique in terms of disaster films is that it gives a very human side to tragedy and devastation by showing how ordinary people cope in times of crisis but it avoids the trap of being trite and overly-sentimental. It's a shame the film is so underrated then as it is a film that would appeal to sci-fi fans and those seeking an interesting story with strong characters.
The film begins when a teenage amateur astronomer discover a comet on a direct collision course for the Earth. The world is then thrown into turmoil has humanity has to accept their possible extinction. While NASA sends a shuttle up with the intention to try to blow the comet to bits, the US government selects people to be saved in a cave they are building to withstand the event. Focusing on various unrelated characters, the film shows how people react differently to the destruction of all that they know.
The brilliant cast, including Morgan Freeman, Vanessa Redgrave, Robert Devall, Elijah Wood, Ron Eldard and many others, all given great depictions of their characters. It is because of their ability to bring their respective characters to life that 'Deep Impact' stands up so well as it is a very emotional and character driven story, as opposed to 'Armageddon', which relied much more on humour and special effects to sell it. Téa Leoni is the only one who doesn't shine through like her co-stars as her performance is quite bland and doesn't capture her character's turbulent emotions. However, as the rest of the cast give great performances, it's easy to overlook her. And even though there is much attention given to establishing the characters doesn't mean the film skimps when it comes to the special effects. Both the scenes in space and those on Earth when the comet hits the planet are well-handled visually. It features some of the best special effects of planetary annihilation that I've ever seen (and I'm a big fan of these disaster flicks).
What makes 'Deep Impact' rather unique in terms of disaster films is that it gives a very human side to tragedy and devastation by showing how ordinary people cope in times of crisis but it avoids the trap of being trite and overly-sentimental. It's a shame the film is so underrated then as it is a film that would appeal to sci-fi fans and those seeking an interesting story with strong characters.
Gotten better over the years...
paul_haakonsen11 January 2024
Oddly enough, I always saw the 1998 movie "Deep Impact" as being somewhat of a subpar natural disaster movie, but each time I watched the movie since 1998, making it about four or five times now, I must admit that the movie had been steadily growing on me.
Why? Well, because the storyline in "Deep Impact" is more than just your run-of-the-mill action-packed natural disaster movie. Writers Bruce Joel Rubin and Michael Tolkin managed to put together a script that provides entertainment well beyond the mindless destruction of meteors crashing into Earth. This is also very much the storyline of hope, love, forgiveness and renewal, and that is what has grown on me over the years.
The acting performances in "Deep Impact" are good, and the cast ensemble is equally good. I mean, with the likes of Robert Duvall, Morgan Freeman, Téa Leoni, Elijah Wood, James Cromwell, Ron Eldard, Jon Favreau, Blair Underwood, Leelee Sobieski and Richard Schiff, then you are in quite capable hands.
The special effects in "Deep Impact" are still actually fairly good today, 26 years after it was initially made. Sure, the CGI looks a bit outdated, but it still serves its intent and purpose.
My rating of "Deep Impact", from director Mimi Leder, lands on a six out of ten stars. And it is a movie well worth watching if you enjoy natural disaster movies.
Why? Well, because the storyline in "Deep Impact" is more than just your run-of-the-mill action-packed natural disaster movie. Writers Bruce Joel Rubin and Michael Tolkin managed to put together a script that provides entertainment well beyond the mindless destruction of meteors crashing into Earth. This is also very much the storyline of hope, love, forgiveness and renewal, and that is what has grown on me over the years.
The acting performances in "Deep Impact" are good, and the cast ensemble is equally good. I mean, with the likes of Robert Duvall, Morgan Freeman, Téa Leoni, Elijah Wood, James Cromwell, Ron Eldard, Jon Favreau, Blair Underwood, Leelee Sobieski and Richard Schiff, then you are in quite capable hands.
The special effects in "Deep Impact" are still actually fairly good today, 26 years after it was initially made. Sure, the CGI looks a bit outdated, but it still serves its intent and purpose.
My rating of "Deep Impact", from director Mimi Leder, lands on a six out of ten stars. And it is a movie well worth watching if you enjoy natural disaster movies.
A 'Disaster' Sums It Up!
ccthemovieman-12 May 2006
This "disaster" flick was just that: a disaster. It features too much talk and not enough actual "disaster" footage and too much profanity for a family to watch an action film. This reminded me of the old "Airport" films in which the life stories of the people took up most of the movie, not the airplane crash or near-crash. In this movie, it takes an hour and 45 minutes before the dreaded comet hits Earth. When it does, however, there are some awesome sights. The sound was great on the DVD and the picture very sharp.
Tea Leoni, the main character, an MSNBC reporter (this network must have funded the movie with all the publicity it got in here), is flat in her delivery. She speaks in a monotone most of the time. Pretty pathetic to have her in the lead when you also have actors the caliber of Morgan Freeman and Robert Duvall. Both of them are fine, as always. Also in the cast worth noting are pre-Lord Of The Rings star Elijah Wood and veterans Maximlian Schell and Vanessa Redgrave.
Tea Leoni, the main character, an MSNBC reporter (this network must have funded the movie with all the publicity it got in here), is flat in her delivery. She speaks in a monotone most of the time. Pretty pathetic to have her in the lead when you also have actors the caliber of Morgan Freeman and Robert Duvall. Both of them are fine, as always. Also in the cast worth noting are pre-Lord Of The Rings star Elijah Wood and veterans Maximlian Schell and Vanessa Redgrave.
Animation was pretty good as of 1998, which is still used in many videos
ParagFerdus21 October 2022
Deep Impact(1998) was a 1998 movie, which I watched in late 2022, I liked the movie as it was created then, the movie held me till the end.
All the characters were act average, no one did too much or too little, and those who have acted well, are already great actors.
Nothing to say about the story. Many minor characters are beautifully fleshed out just to capture the emotion of the movie which is a part of this type of movie
But the animation was pretty good as of 1998, which is still used in many videos,
I enjoy disaster-type movies with science fictionmove I like watching a this, there's not much to learn here, but it's understandable.
All the characters were act average, no one did too much or too little, and those who have acted well, are already great actors.
Nothing to say about the story. Many minor characters are beautifully fleshed out just to capture the emotion of the movie which is a part of this type of movie
But the animation was pretty good as of 1998, which is still used in many videos,
I enjoy disaster-type movies with science fictionmove I like watching a this, there's not much to learn here, but it's understandable.
Big budget, little inspiration
Alex-37223 October 2002
Deep Impact is one of the horde of movies about catastrophic events that were released just before the Millennium (Armageddon, etc.).
That said, for the budget that was available, for the cast they had, this is not a great movie. Morgan Freeman, Vanessa Redgrave, Maximilian Schell, Blair Underwood, Ron Eldard, etc. can't make a wallet out of a pig's ear, even with their talent. Leelee Sobiesky looks like a teenaged Helen Hunt, but the subplot she's in is just silly (puppy love with fellow teenaged geek stargazer Elijah Wood).
It doesn't help either that Téa Leoni doesn't look like either of her parents.
Plot wise, improbability is heaped upon impossibility. What's the chance that the guy who actually discovers the comet is immediately killed in a fiery car accident? And after he was killed, how did they find out about the comet? Yes, he stored it on his computer, but talk about an unnecessary subplot. The writers could have just moved the arrival of the comet forward a little. Then, there is the entire subplot of Téa and her divorced parents. At one point, she even shouts to her dad: "I feel like an orphan!". Well baby, at 32, you must be the oldest orphan in the world.
And lastly, there is the "arc" for survivors. And what happened to the nuclear winter?
However, the special effects of the Tsunami like wave are cool.
That said, for the budget that was available, for the cast they had, this is not a great movie. Morgan Freeman, Vanessa Redgrave, Maximilian Schell, Blair Underwood, Ron Eldard, etc. can't make a wallet out of a pig's ear, even with their talent. Leelee Sobiesky looks like a teenaged Helen Hunt, but the subplot she's in is just silly (puppy love with fellow teenaged geek stargazer Elijah Wood).
It doesn't help either that Téa Leoni doesn't look like either of her parents.
Plot wise, improbability is heaped upon impossibility. What's the chance that the guy who actually discovers the comet is immediately killed in a fiery car accident? And after he was killed, how did they find out about the comet? Yes, he stored it on his computer, but talk about an unnecessary subplot. The writers could have just moved the arrival of the comet forward a little. Then, there is the entire subplot of Téa and her divorced parents. At one point, she even shouts to her dad: "I feel like an orphan!". Well baby, at 32, you must be the oldest orphan in the world.
And lastly, there is the "arc" for survivors. And what happened to the nuclear winter?
However, the special effects of the Tsunami like wave are cool.
engrossing investigation but predictable disaster movie
SnoopyStyle29 November 2013
Journalist Jenny Lerner (Téa Leoni) is given a lesser assignment of researching Secretary Alan Rittenhouse who resigned abruptly. She discovers he had an affair with Ellie. As she digs deeper, she finds the biggest story of her life. Meanwhile, high school student Leo Biederman (Elijah Wood) and astronomer Dr. Marcus Wolf discover a new meteor heading for Earth.
The investigative reporting is very engrossing. It culminates to a reveal to the world halfway into the movie. The 2nd half isn't quite as compelling. It gets very predictable and by the number disaster movie. Some of it is overly melodramatic. Instead of an exciting ending, it peters out even with the CG disaster. I would give the first half a 7, and the second half a 5.
The investigative reporting is very engrossing. It culminates to a reveal to the world halfway into the movie. The 2nd half isn't quite as compelling. It gets very predictable and by the number disaster movie. Some of it is overly melodramatic. Instead of an exciting ending, it peters out even with the CG disaster. I would give the first half a 7, and the second half a 5.
Better Than "Armageddon"
jack_o_hasanov_imdb10 January 2022
I like these kinds of movies, whether they're bad or silly. I wish I had watched this movie when I was a kid. I would have liked this movie more if i whached when i was a kid. This movie was released in the same year as the movie called "Armegeddon", but I think it's better both in terms of science and in terms of operation. Acting was good. The script is average. As usual, USA is on duty to save the world, it's disturbing, but it doesn't bother anymore :)
The effects of the movie are actually bad, but it's bad compared to now, it must be good for the period. I didn't mind the effects. Overall, the movie is an average movie.
Utter Crap
tmsdr21 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Total utter crap! It isn't even unintentionally funny, like Independence Day. Only good thing is the special-effects in the end when the meteor strikes. Unfortunately that constitutes only about 3 minutes of the movie. The rest is just an seemingly endless stream of over-emotional "farewell, i love you"-scenes. One big tedious, cheesy soap opera about how heroic and unselfish (american) people are when facing certain annihilation. All accompanied by a never-ending symphonic orchestra. This is one of the most surprisingly crappy movies i have seen i my life. A good example on how you can't trust the ratings on this site.
Fantastic and Moving
MovieGuy200713 March 2007
Having seen such films as Armageddon and The Day After Tomorrow, I really expected this film to be basically an effects demo reel. Most disaster films fit into this category: their plot is loosely tied together with some major event; humanity is threatened, a group of heroes is sent to try to save the world, and mankind prevails over nature. The rest of the film is essentially nifty visual effects that don't do much to enhance the plot.
So when I saw the first half of Deep Impact, I was amazed. Apart from a brief montage of special effects in the opening sequence (a car crash that simply screams "big budget"), the movie is one of the first disaster movies I've seen that actually focuses more on the human side of the drama rather than the awesome visual effects that computers can accomplish.
Many times during the film, especially during the latter half, I felt myself touched by the realism that the actors and actresses convey. There are moments when you realize how fragile and precious life is, and that's saying something for a film of this budget.
While the visual effects are indeed impressive, there are other features that make Deep Impact a necessary film to watch. James Horner's music is strikingly similar to his previous "Titanic" and "Apollo 13" scores, but it is still hauntingly beautiful and fits the tone of the movie perfectly. Tea Leoni does a good job of portraying a newscaster attempting to cover the events surrounding her while dealing with her own personal emotions, which is undoubtedly a hard act to pull off. Elijah Wood shows his skill years before "Lord of the Rings" hit theaters. The other actors and actresses are very realistic and emotional, and the movie flows smoothly with their presence.
All in all, this movie is not one to be missed. Keep an open mind while watching this movie: don't watch it with the misconception that it's just going to be another one of those big-budget dull blockbuster films that gets churned out every summer. This one dares to avoid the seemingly standard clichés set by other films of the genre, which makes it a truly unique film to experience.
Score: 9/10
So when I saw the first half of Deep Impact, I was amazed. Apart from a brief montage of special effects in the opening sequence (a car crash that simply screams "big budget"), the movie is one of the first disaster movies I've seen that actually focuses more on the human side of the drama rather than the awesome visual effects that computers can accomplish.
Many times during the film, especially during the latter half, I felt myself touched by the realism that the actors and actresses convey. There are moments when you realize how fragile and precious life is, and that's saying something for a film of this budget.
While the visual effects are indeed impressive, there are other features that make Deep Impact a necessary film to watch. James Horner's music is strikingly similar to his previous "Titanic" and "Apollo 13" scores, but it is still hauntingly beautiful and fits the tone of the movie perfectly. Tea Leoni does a good job of portraying a newscaster attempting to cover the events surrounding her while dealing with her own personal emotions, which is undoubtedly a hard act to pull off. Elijah Wood shows his skill years before "Lord of the Rings" hit theaters. The other actors and actresses are very realistic and emotional, and the movie flows smoothly with their presence.
All in all, this movie is not one to be missed. Keep an open mind while watching this movie: don't watch it with the misconception that it's just going to be another one of those big-budget dull blockbuster films that gets churned out every summer. This one dares to avoid the seemingly standard clichés set by other films of the genre, which makes it a truly unique film to experience.
Score: 9/10
Better than Armageddon
take_the_cannolis28 August 2022
It's not a semi-comedy like Armageddon but with actors like Robert Duvall, Morgan Freeman and Elijah Woods as well as superior directoring and scoring, Deep Impact is hard to beat.
I wasn't crazy about Tea leoni's performance but with other fine supporting cast members like Vanessa Redgrave and Maximilian Schell, it's really a pretty darn good disaster movie.
It's also very well paced with minimal slow scenes. Of course it's farcical and yes there are holes in the plot and Leoni's character is really annoying, but it's still very watchable. In addition , the script isn't nearly as corny as Armageddon.
I wasn't crazy about Tea leoni's performance but with other fine supporting cast members like Vanessa Redgrave and Maximilian Schell, it's really a pretty darn good disaster movie.
It's also very well paced with minimal slow scenes. Of course it's farcical and yes there are holes in the plot and Leoni's character is really annoying, but it's still very watchable. In addition , the script isn't nearly as corny as Armageddon.
There might be some SPOLIERS here, but the movie is bad anyway.
Neonsamurai10 October 2002
A comet thunders towards the earth on a cataclysmic collision course, and is spotted by a young lad who is able to warn the US government of impending doom. In order to stop the comet, NASA plans a space mission so flawed that my science teacher would have thrown it back and given them detention for a week!
What worries me is that should such an event happen (or any other Extinction Level Event), that some people might turn to Deep Impact as a rough guide on what do. I hope that they read these words before such a thing happens:
1) If a massive tidal wave is sweeping towards you at 100 mph, then running away won't do much good, or at least you should have thought about doing that much sooner.
2) If everyone not hidden in the underground shelter is going to die, then giving your son an expensive watch to use as a bargaining tool might not be very useful.
3) If your newlywed wife would rather get smashed to pieces by a massive tidal wave, than spend the rest of her life with you, then things aren't working out, and maybe you should spend some time apart.
4) If your daughter would rather stay with you and die horribly under a massive tidal wave, rather than spending the rest of her life with the nice young man she just married, then for heavens sake, speak up!
5) If you are the head of NASA and have to produce a mission plan to save the world, try not to include such points as; flying through the comets tail, giving the astronauts less time than a commercial break to complete their mission, giving them bombs that don't work properly or having a crew who suffer from ageism.
However, in the slew of meteor films (we'll, 2) that came at us in 1998, Deep Impact had one major advantage over Armageddon, it had an accurate title. There was an impact and I imagine that it must have been quite deep, but Armageddon well I felt a little cheated.
So in summary, by all means watch the film, but please don't copy anything you see. Especially you fellows at NASA.
What worries me is that should such an event happen (or any other Extinction Level Event), that some people might turn to Deep Impact as a rough guide on what do. I hope that they read these words before such a thing happens:
1) If a massive tidal wave is sweeping towards you at 100 mph, then running away won't do much good, or at least you should have thought about doing that much sooner.
2) If everyone not hidden in the underground shelter is going to die, then giving your son an expensive watch to use as a bargaining tool might not be very useful.
3) If your newlywed wife would rather get smashed to pieces by a massive tidal wave, than spend the rest of her life with you, then things aren't working out, and maybe you should spend some time apart.
4) If your daughter would rather stay with you and die horribly under a massive tidal wave, rather than spending the rest of her life with the nice young man she just married, then for heavens sake, speak up!
5) If you are the head of NASA and have to produce a mission plan to save the world, try not to include such points as; flying through the comets tail, giving the astronauts less time than a commercial break to complete their mission, giving them bombs that don't work properly or having a crew who suffer from ageism.
However, in the slew of meteor films (we'll, 2) that came at us in 1998, Deep Impact had one major advantage over Armageddon, it had an accurate title. There was an impact and I imagine that it must have been quite deep, but Armageddon well I felt a little cheated.
So in summary, by all means watch the film, but please don't copy anything you see. Especially you fellows at NASA.
"Deep Impact" is extremely under rated!
manonfire_jer20926 March 2005
5.9!? I can't believe that. I know disaster movies are usually crap such as The Day After Tomorrow, Armageddon, Godzilla, Independence Day, etc. This however was not crap. It boasted a fine cast that did great work the standout being Morgan Freeman and Robert Duvall. The rest of the cast though also did quite well. The story was handled in a fairly realistic manner and didn't require me to roll my eyes at the many plot contrivances the way the others I listed did. The only major flaw for me was the casting of tea Leoni. The usually dependable actress was extremely bland in this film. She has done much better work in her career. Despite that flaw this is another fine movie that for some reason is really under rated.
Shouldn't be forgotten.
sgmi-535792 March 2022
Among the disaster boom of the late 90s, this doesn't get the same attention. Too bad, as it's a well made and lovely little doomsday production, with too performances, and a solid messages that escapes it's 90s confines. Does any of this exist in the real world? Probably not; that's why I'm watching a movie. Recommended.
People were really dumb in 1998
devincrim2518 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I was 5 years old when this movie came out in 1998, and vaguely remember it being a big deal, along with Armageddon. Lo and behold, 17 years later I find this "classic" on Netflix. Its Tuesday night and I don't want to start on my homework yet, so I thought I would give this "classic" a view.
Now, I'm not an astronomy major, but I'm pretty sure an Earth killing comet would be spotted by someone other than a group of snotty nose kids in a field, since, yanno, people look for comets all of the time. Furthermore, there is no way the Government, which can't even keep itself funded half of the time could keep the news secret, since eventually you would be able to SEE the comet with your naked eye. Also, blowing a comet up only creates more chucks of ice, that basically equals the mass of the entire comet. Therefore, you would not only still have to deal with the full effects of the impact, but debris would hit more places around the globe.
The science in this movie is bad, but considering this was probably a summer blockbuster aimed at basically stealing 7 bucks from dumb Americans its OK.
What is NOT OK is the acting, and the actions several characters take. There are several characters that behaved so stupidly and unnaturally I couldn't list them all if I tried, so I'll focus on the dumbest. 12 year old Leo, the kid that found the comet gets married (lol) to his 12 year old girlfriend. They are offered a spot underground and will survive the Comet. Leo's girlfriend decides she wants to DIE with her mom and dad. Young Leo can't accept this, and turns away to go get his girlfriend, AFTER YOUNG LEO AND HIS PARENTS HAVE ALREADY TRAVELED TO THE OZART MOUNTAINS IN MISSOURI, THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM THEIR VIRGINIA HOMES. Young Leo's parents say "aww, OK, here is a WATCH SO YOU CAN TRADE WITH PEOPLE ON YOUR WAY 3000 MILES BACK TO OUR OLD HOUSE, BE SAFE SON". What parents in their right minds would allow this. You're sending your 12 year old son out into a world that will be on FIRE I 20 minutes with no realistic way of evening getting out of the parking lot before impact. Also, remember, this girl CHOSE to STAY with her parent and DIE in a tidal wave, rather than be with Leo. I used to be 12 years old, and every girl I meet was the "one". I would never leave a secure location to go be with a girl that would literally rather DIE IN A TIDAL WAVE than LIVE with me.
Anyway, Leo somehow makes it across the country, back to his Virginia house in less than 10 minutes with no means of transportation, and finds his lover in traffic. This time, she RELUCTANTLY agrees to go with him, 10 minutes before the comet slams into the ocean. Young Leo outruns a tidal wave moving 1100 MPH on a scooter. Let me say that again. Young Leo outruns a tidal wave moving at 1100 MPH on a scooter. I guess that makes sense considering he got from the Ozark Mountains in Missouri to Virginia in 10 minutes walking. Maybe HE should have been tasked with blowing up the comet.
Oh, I almost forgot about the ending. The idiots in space nuke the 2nd chuck of comet, "saving" the planet. Like I said before, the energy released from the comet would have the same effect regardless if its a solid body or broken up into chucks. Would you rather have 1000 nuclear bombs explode in one place, or 1000 places? Just Stupid.
I can't believe this movie turned a profit and I can't believe its considered a "classic". Morgan Freeman should demand his name by deleted from the credits. Just imagine watching a bad soap opera, music and all, wrapped in a disaster movie. I didn't even discuss the reporter. Awful. This is what I get for procrastinating on homework.
Now, I'm not an astronomy major, but I'm pretty sure an Earth killing comet would be spotted by someone other than a group of snotty nose kids in a field, since, yanno, people look for comets all of the time. Furthermore, there is no way the Government, which can't even keep itself funded half of the time could keep the news secret, since eventually you would be able to SEE the comet with your naked eye. Also, blowing a comet up only creates more chucks of ice, that basically equals the mass of the entire comet. Therefore, you would not only still have to deal with the full effects of the impact, but debris would hit more places around the globe.
The science in this movie is bad, but considering this was probably a summer blockbuster aimed at basically stealing 7 bucks from dumb Americans its OK.
What is NOT OK is the acting, and the actions several characters take. There are several characters that behaved so stupidly and unnaturally I couldn't list them all if I tried, so I'll focus on the dumbest. 12 year old Leo, the kid that found the comet gets married (lol) to his 12 year old girlfriend. They are offered a spot underground and will survive the Comet. Leo's girlfriend decides she wants to DIE with her mom and dad. Young Leo can't accept this, and turns away to go get his girlfriend, AFTER YOUNG LEO AND HIS PARENTS HAVE ALREADY TRAVELED TO THE OZART MOUNTAINS IN MISSOURI, THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM THEIR VIRGINIA HOMES. Young Leo's parents say "aww, OK, here is a WATCH SO YOU CAN TRADE WITH PEOPLE ON YOUR WAY 3000 MILES BACK TO OUR OLD HOUSE, BE SAFE SON". What parents in their right minds would allow this. You're sending your 12 year old son out into a world that will be on FIRE I 20 minutes with no realistic way of evening getting out of the parking lot before impact. Also, remember, this girl CHOSE to STAY with her parent and DIE in a tidal wave, rather than be with Leo. I used to be 12 years old, and every girl I meet was the "one". I would never leave a secure location to go be with a girl that would literally rather DIE IN A TIDAL WAVE than LIVE with me.
Anyway, Leo somehow makes it across the country, back to his Virginia house in less than 10 minutes with no means of transportation, and finds his lover in traffic. This time, she RELUCTANTLY agrees to go with him, 10 minutes before the comet slams into the ocean. Young Leo outruns a tidal wave moving 1100 MPH on a scooter. Let me say that again. Young Leo outruns a tidal wave moving at 1100 MPH on a scooter. I guess that makes sense considering he got from the Ozark Mountains in Missouri to Virginia in 10 minutes walking. Maybe HE should have been tasked with blowing up the comet.
Oh, I almost forgot about the ending. The idiots in space nuke the 2nd chuck of comet, "saving" the planet. Like I said before, the energy released from the comet would have the same effect regardless if its a solid body or broken up into chucks. Would you rather have 1000 nuclear bombs explode in one place, or 1000 places? Just Stupid.
I can't believe this movie turned a profit and I can't believe its considered a "classic". Morgan Freeman should demand his name by deleted from the credits. Just imagine watching a bad soap opera, music and all, wrapped in a disaster movie. I didn't even discuss the reporter. Awful. This is what I get for procrastinating on homework.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
