IMDb > Y2K (1999) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Y2K More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 12 reviews in total 

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Brilliant title infers a film with hundreds of possibilities, and they chose this one?

Author: Os Davis
3 November 1999

Brilliant title infers a film with hundreds of possibilities, and they chose this one? everyone's into Y2K, it'll be an anagram associated with the year 1999 and let's face it -- it's *&^&^%^%ing spooky, eh? so what do we get? a half-baked testosterone fest with godawful dialogue poorly acted.

the "movie" bearing those dread three characters Y2K is supposedly about a U.S. missile in South America -- "We had missiles here?" the computer geek of the piece asks. "Duh," respond audiences. -- that gets a little bit kooky when it fritzes in response to 2000. (absolutely every other piece of technology seems to be functioning 100%, however.)

until an ending that takes forever to reach (you won't believe the one character's justification for his actions), we suffer through sheer stupidity.

if apocalypse does come with the calendar's turn, i think the time until then could be better spent in millions of ways.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Y2K humbug

Author: Nigel-26 from Adelaide, South Australia
17 October 1999

Why they called this movie Y2K is beyond me! What starts out as promising loses a lot as the movie winds on. The plot and the acting is slightly second rate and I found that by the end the countdown did not engage the viewer. Tying the plot to a Columbian drug lord at the end was just too much. Passable.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Good idea, poor execution

Author: Graeme Foster ( from England
6 October 1999

Y2K has squandered a perfect opportunity to make a good, tense action movie. When a powerful missile activates itself on a countdown for the millenium, the usual rag-tag team are sent to de-activate it. The trailer for this movie looked good, but in the actual film there is hardly any action or violence as expected and the story plods along without creating anything interesting in the dull boring characters. Overall the film is poor and boring. 3/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Basic Instinct, They used the care chase from BI in this movie...

Author: mcpartlins from United States
9 May 2007

OK how can they do this...

The car chase in this movie is the same car chase from Basic Instinct. I mean I was watching this movie on mute while on the phone and thought I was watching Basic Instinct.

I've watched that movie (basic instinct) a lot so I knew I was right. I had comcast DVR so I re winded and checked it out further. Yup, it's the footage from Basic Instinct. So does Paul V get a residuial check for his footage showing up in another movie?

Hey isn't that stealing or plagerim or something like that? Has anyone seen anything like this before?

How can they get away with something like this?

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

boring, but not bad in a way.

Author: steve-823 from Connecticut
23 September 2000

This movie starts out really exciting. But about half way into the movie it begins to get dull and boring. Sarah Chalke was really good in this movie though. She was the only thing that makes this movie worth watching. She is a great actress and her character made this movie a little more exciting. Without her this movie would be completely dull.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Bizarre, Ridiculous, and Rates a One

Author: Shannon Box ( from Canyon Lake, Texas
21 November 1999

Normally, when a film rates this low, I find other things to like about it. Namely, its silliness. To say I didn't laugh throughout this film would be a lie. This movie provides a great many laughs. Its just. . . well, this is not supposed to be a comedy.

Even so, I enjoyed other awful attempts at seriousness. Examples include Disney's, "Epcot: The Celebration," and Ed Wood's "Plan 9 From Outer Space." The difference with "Y2K" is that they are exploiting real fears. Similar to "Reds," the subject matter is deadly serious. "Reds" ranked a one in my book by candy coating a serious subject, in a ridiculous movie formula. The same goes for "Y2K."

The only thing these films have in common besides their poor rating, is the fact that they highlight fiction. On the one hand the fiction of the great communist movement, and on the other the fiction of the great threat to our times, the year 2000 computer problem. Give me a break on both fronts.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Low budget but worth watching

Author: Tenacity from NY
5 April 2003

The movie was obviously low budget which doesn't bode well for an action flick. However, the motivational premise of the movie surrounding Gulf War vets was unique enough to make this worth watching on a rainy afternoon (or late night). Acting by both Louis Gossett, Jr. and Sarah Chalke were notable. Good job on both parts.

Was the above review useful to you?

AKA: Terminal Countdown

Author: Elswet from .: Fiendish Writings in the Dark :.
13 May 2007

Louis Gossett, Jr., Jamiz Woolvett, Ed O'Ross. People must stop a computer from launching nuclear bombs.

This is like an odd blend of War Games and Navy Seals, though it works! The performances contributed here are all above par for a movie of this type. One does not typically expect realism from these American GI movies, as most often than not, the budget goes towards effects, high dollar action stars, and location shooting than script, props, or good performances. So imagine my surprise when I came across this little underdog.

Awesome action, with a little humor peppered throughout, and some awesome acts, this actioner walks you through some very suspenseful moments, high action sequences, and beautiful settings.

All in all? It is an enjoyable surprise if you like the military-type actioners. Otherwise, there is no reason to go here, as it's all about military action.

It rates a 7.1/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Good concept, poorly tied to the false millenium

Author: Pierre Leblanc from Atlanta, Georgia
23 January 2000

Nice idea. A secret silo has a computer failure at the change of the year (y2k, get the title?). A skilled team is coerced to go in and fix it, but their efforts are fatigued by drug lords and internal US armed forces strife. Unfortunately the characters are hollow and the idea is poorly executed. Remove the y2k theme and the glib characters, and there might be a solid movie here. Definitely worthy of a remake! If you watch it, don't sweat the details (which aren't terrible, just bad) and try to enjoy the underlying concept. While the current version is a 'MacGyver' movie (at best), a remake could be on par with 'Force 10 from Navarone.' If you like tension, a good plot, well developed characters, and nice plot twists... wait for the remake.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Hard to watch

Author: mozzis from Ohio, USA
19 June 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Very predictable. Myra's Russian accent is really bad.


Vince plans to send the missile into space. Nuclear missiles cannot achieve orbit, let alone escape it.

The Marines did not respond to the attack properly, especially if they were SpecOps guys. Then did not seek cover, they did not pick their targets, they shot while standing without moving, etc.

Where did Thompson's backup crew (the ones guarding the silo while they were re-targeting the missile) come from?

Vince's character yells a lot and is a real sissy until three quarters through when he is willing to die rather than change the target of the missile.

Seward would not have the authority to order an incursion into a foreign country.

Imagery and screens on the silo computers are not at all like 1969 era displays.

Was the above review useful to you?

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

Add another review

Related Links

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