Impact (TV Mini-Series 2009– ) Poster

(2009– )

User Reviews

Review this title
49 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
As much as I hate to say it, this was fun (sort of) to watch.
innocuous9 November 2009
Yeah, I kind of got a kick out of it, but not for the reasons the film-makers intended. This is one of the few disaster movies that makes "Armaggeddon" look like it was written by geniuses and "The Core" like it was made as an instructional film for use in college geology courses. The wide liberties taken with actual fact (and common sense) make for a rollicking time, but it scares me that we're failing in educating the youth of today.

I mean, this is only 3 hours long, but in that time you learn that the screenwriters (1) think that the moon has a magnetic field emanating from a core, (2) believe that the "laws of gravity" are that "little objects are attracted to big objects," (3) don't know that cruise missiles are air-breathers and won't operate or even steer in the absence of an atmosphere, (4) don't understand the difference between electromagnetics and gravity, (5) think that it takes longer to walk back to town from a car breakdown than to program, launch, and deliver 87 rockets with nuclear device payloads all the way to the moon, (6) have some bizarre ideas about what a brown dwarf star is, and so forth.

But it IS entertaining. Just make sure to have a chat with your kids afterwards to make sure that (a) your son didn't spend the entire movie following Natsha Henstridge's boobs, and (b) that your daughter understands that the science end of it was all BS so she won't be afraid to get her graduate degree in physics. After all, any exposure to the "scientists" in this film is an almost guaranteed turn-off for budding researchers.
22 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
cute kids, cool grandpa, lousy science and writing.
oldbob3929 June 2009
Hey, did anyone else notice that the patch on the general's sleeve was for the First Cavalry? What!?! Cavalry? Couldn't they at least have invented some bogus "Joint Astrospace Defence Command" patch?

I must admit, I didn't watch the movie intently: my wife was watching, and I would sit with her until the bogusness got too bad, then I'd go clean my closet or something. But I must also admit that I'm biased by my own history. I worked for NASA for 37 years, then taught high school for six, so the stunning level of bad science really grated on my sensibility. As someone noted, couldn't the writers have at least talked an amateur astronomer into critiquing the script. Maybe he could have explained the law of the conservation of momentum, and if the writers were quick studies, they might have progressed to complex topics like basic orbital mechanics.

There were redeeming features, of course. The little girl proved herself a fine young actress with her expressive face in that video conversation with her dad, and the grandpa was splendid, just as he was in "Babe". (I'd like to look for more of his movies to rent: I enjoy his work.) And, of course, all us old-timers know that all female space scientists are blonde, slender, very attractive, 30 to 35 years old, and possessed of big boobs. So they did get that part right.

Seriously, there should be no excuse for such bad science fiction on TV. Too much of the US population is nearly illiterate in science. And I am not talking about the kids in school now. This movie was shown in prime time, so was presumably intended for adult audiences. But this is the population who agree, in the majority, with the statement "early humans often had to defend their caves against marauding dinosaurs." And let's not forget there are politicians that claim to not believe the theory that is actually the fundamental guiding principle of contemporary biology. With a little more effort, some of the major flaws in the story could have been corrected and the audience might have gone away with a little better understanding of the underlying science. Yes, it's science FICTION, but fiction still needs internal self-consistency and a clear understanding of its own premises and their consequences. (Think "Jurassic Park" as a good example.)

Some of us have worked hard to educate this country in science, and seeing this movie is so discouraging, as if taunting us by saying we are never going to win.
64 out of 80 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Guilty pleasure
MartianOctocretr512 July 2009
Scientific inaccuracies abound as the moon gets shell-shocked by (ready?) a brown dwarf, making it heavier than the Earth, and causing freakish electro magnetitism, weird gravity, etc.

A guilty pleasure, for sure: I love these "the end of the world threatens" flicks where a bunch of scientists try to save us all from annihilation. It's definitely put your brain on hold stuff, but it's far superior to that "reality" rubbish and most of the other stuff on network TV. This flick "borrowed" elements from Armageddon and other movies, but at least it was free.

Considering the outlandish script, the acting was actually pretty good, including the child actors. The special effects were decent. Characters were clearly developed, and could be identified with. I actually felt sorry for the one that suffered from a debilitating phobia. The director did the most possible with the plot-hole-ridden story, and some of the weird stuff that happens is even fun to watch.

Cinematic fast food that's amusing, and doesn't cost a lot.
28 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Check your expectations
thirdimpact115 June 2009
That's the best thing you can do. It's a made for TV movie, and believe me it doesn't transcend that stature, nor does it really try to. Once you get it through your head that it won't have the production values of a Michael Bay movie or the big name stars, it's actually alright for what it is. It's a globe spanning disaster movie with a pretty cool premise - the moon hitting the planet.

Because it's on TV, the only thing it asks of you is your time. Honestly, if you don't like it (and you'll know immediately whether or not) you can just as easily click away. I won't blame you if you do, but if you're up for a disaster flick that's halfway decent and free to watch, you can do much, much worse. Yes, the acting can be, well, bad at times, but for the most part it's serviceable. After all, you just need the characters to act shocked and sad at the news and events so yes, they do that well enough.

If I had to pay to see something like this, yeah I'd be upset. But it's free and with the summer TV season in pretty bad shape it's a nice way to blow off four hours. It's completely inoffensive and that's leagues better than most made for TV movies.
42 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Superficial entertainment
marinus-918 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This is watchable, the acting is mostly decent, the special effects reasonably well done for a TV series and they even took the effort to shoot in Germany and Canada. The cinematography and the directing are actually quite good. CGI is so-so, but there may just not have been enough money to make a train fly through the air in a believable manner.

The scientific part of the story on the other hand is so impossible it hurts. Michael Vickerman, the screenwriter, has no idea of the basics of physics, doesn't know magnetism from gravity and continually mixes them up. Consequently all the effects from the moon coming closer to earth and the final successful solution of the problem are completely wrong.

This production cost more than 10 million to make. Shouldn't the screenwriter at least have asked a hobby astronomer whether the stuff in the story is even remotely possible? Good grief! Still, mostly entertaining and wholesome.
22 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A masterpiece of crap
The Inquisitor19 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers

First off, I didn't think much of "Armageddon" in the first place. At best, it was a 5/10 star movie if only because of the CG effects (of it's day) This show gets 1 star because:

A: Duh... It's a two bit knockoff

It rips off the entire premise of Armageddon. Planet killing space object, planetary disasters, nuclear weapons, last ditch expedition, heroic sacrifice...blah blah blah. It's basically cut and pasted from the original script.

B: Super sized storyline clichés...

Hmmm...OK. So, the guy from JAG is a recently widowed astronomer with two oh so adorable kids. And, the chick from Species is a single, frumped up but still strikingly attractive astronomer whom the JAG guy went to school with... I wonder what's going to happen with these two? (yawn)

And, let's not forget the obsessive, slightly creepy yet brilliant scientist guy who finds out that his neglected wife is (gasp) pregnant! Oh no! I hope that he doesn't die, later! And, who can forget the tried and true "let's launch a nuclear arsenal at the problem" approach. Because, this has always worked so well in previous movies.

C: The obligatory presidential address.

Yeah...sure...unite the world in the face of the impending doom...we are one thy neighbour...blah blah blah. I'm so sure that the entire world wouldn't already be too busy running amok in a violent, drug fueled, sexually ambiguous frenzy to notice.

D: Science? What's that?

Don't even get me started about the scientific fallacies in this movie. I would have thought that the writers would have at least done a wikipedia search before filling a script with such nonsense.


I wouldn't feel bad about downloading this movie on a P2P/bit torrent network. It's already pirated and repackaged. Who cares?
36 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Aw come on, it's just a fun & entertaining movie with a unique twist
tlmedia6 September 2009
Let's face it folks this is a low budget made for TV flick. I'm looking for entertainment and the premise of the moon hitting the earth is a spell-binding one.

It's also Sci-Fi so it's fine to stretch the facts. I'm a professional writer and will admit I'm a bit surprised there wasn't more research on the "real physics." A few hours with a Cal-Tech Professor would have cleared that up, especially regarding Kepler's Law and the difference between magnetism & gravity. But really who cares! If you want to know astrophysics, take a course at your local community college!

Anyway the movie is well paced and edited. Every scene advances the story line nicely. I didn't have time to pick apart details. CGI can be weak, but it gets the story told. Can you say the words, "LOW BUDGET." Despite "Impact's" fours hours the film never lost my attention. That's my definition of a "good, OK, film." I include the "sleepy factor" in rating pictures and I was wide awake for all 240 minutes.

Remember the Walt Disney quote, "The Plausible Impossible?" Sure fits here.
17 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Brown Dwarf - Ha Ha
andymcguckin4 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This film from the point of view of family relationships is quite good, but it completely fails once it enters the realm of science, and is not even good 'Science Fiction.'

The fragment that hits the moon is reputed to be from a brown dwarf, brown dwarfs are astrophysical objects that are intermediate entities between planets and stars. Stars like the sun are not immensely dense, in fact the density of our sun is comparable to that of water and 'brown dwarfs' are of the order of .1 of a solar mass so the film as usual for Hollywood and TV is based on a failed premise. I think they meant to use a fragment of a 'Neutron Star,' as this would have fit with the effects described and even the goofs section is inaccurate about the suggested effects of an impact with the moon of a brown dwarf fragment. The author probably read about brown dwarfs being the size of Jupiter with a mass of between 20-50 times that of Jupiter and assumed that they were superdense objects. Brown dwarfs are failed stars/suns and if they were broken up they would diminish due to molecular reactions because gravity would no longer keep the fragments together and they would most probably combine with other molecules and elements to form conglomerate meteor/asteroids that would not be very dense at all. It is because they do not have sufficient mass to become stars that they become brown dwarfs in the first place. There are times when I wish that Hollywood or the TV commissioning editors would at least check that the science is at least plausible before allowing projects to go forward.

I know that science has been dumbed down, but this is going too far! So although this films scores on how relationships cope with extraordinary situations, it fails as a premise in my opinion and anyone with a better than high school education will realise that, but in the US and in the UK most people don't have a clue about science, and neither do film makers apparently.

17 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very possibly one of the worst science-fiction movies ever made this century.
vfrickey20 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I mean that, too. Part of the dumbing-down of the civilized world (not just America) is that something that used to be taught in high school, the Law of Universal Gravitation, is blithely tossed out the window in this Leaden Turkey of a movie. Things happen which anyone with a pencil and paper and knowledge of equation F=G(M(1)xM(2))/r squared at his disposal could show would never happen in a few minutes of paperwork. It's not even calculus - just simple algebra. Isaac Newton was able to figure it out in the seventeenth century.

There is absolutely no excuse for this film. It is an amalgam of willful, sorry ignorance of scientific facts wrapped up in a glittering cinema production. The writers of this script should hang their heads in shame, for they have demonstrated a great deal of highly-counterintuitive idiocy in their screenplay.

There are American films I am proud are shown overseas. This one makes me want to hang my head in shame at the thought that the screenwriters' VERY sketchy grasp of science is being shown outside the country, helping to give our people a mostly undeserved reputation for crass stupidity.

If I could burn every reel, tape and DVD of a movie, it would be this one.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Disturbingly stupid plot seeks to destroy Earth
James Garry16 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
My wife and I watched this to its end. We did so in the misplaced hope that it would get better and that surely it could not sink further.

The acting is adequate.

The casting is adequate.

The photograpy, similarly, is adequate.

But oh my. In a 'coffee-spurting-out-of-my-nose' manner, the plot is simply ludicrous and the errors were legion. Let's make a small list.

a) Sextillion. I've never heard anyone use this word. If they mean 10 to the 21st power, why not say it? c) They had the concept of an orbit utterly wrong. Orbits aren't 'stable'; they're closed or they are not. If they're closed, they're an ellipse of some sort.

d) The orbit must have the central body at its focus - not at its geometric centre.

e) The term 'axis peak' is never used by anyone. Except in this movie. It doesn't mean anything. If you mean apogee, why not say it? Ap-oh-gee. It's not hard, really.

f) If the gravitic anomalies affect larger objects but not smaller ones, why do the oceans and the atmosphere not fly up into the sky? We see a laden container ship floating out of the sea, why isn't the sea also sucked upward? Why isn't the air rushing past in an inverted tornado? g) Nobody has manipulated gravity through electromagnetic means - the 'hero' with a straight face says that he built a machine to levitate objects in this manner. Why was he not laughed at? h) The magic device that saves the day is designed to magnetize the Moon's core and repel the hypermass causing all the woe. Take two small magnets, hold them such that they have the same poles facing each other, and let them go. One magnet will spin violently and slam into the other. It will not be ejected into the Sun.

i) The energy needed to flip this gazillion tonne mass out of the Moon has to come from somewhere.

j) I've lost the will to type.

The director should hang his head in shame. This was a very bad mini-series. I laughed at all the wrong places, I actually *wanted* the Moon to grind into the Earth so as to show the characters what utter bullshit their magical plans were.

If they had tried to repel the moon with magic it would have been more coherent.

My disbelief is easily suspended. But it has to be coherent and make sense within itself. This failed and as a result I couldn't care about the characters as they were spouting nonsense with straight faces.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dreadful. Truly dreadful.
Peet McKimmie24 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This was billed as "Science fiction", but frankly it's just "Fantasy". There isn't the slightest attempt to involve any actual science - the scriptwriter just keeps saying outlandish things and the actors struggle to make it seem like they believe this is how the world works.

In the minute or two before the beginning titles, for example, we are told that "the biggest meteor shower for (X) years" is about to happen. We cut between crowds of people gathered in fields all round the world, every one with a telescope on a tripod, peering into a dark sky.

1) Meteor showers happen as the Earth passes through a particle cloud; they're only seen on the leading side of the planet, not the whole planet simultaneously.

2) Astronomers only gather in that way to view localised phenomena such as total solar eclipses, not wide-ranging phenomena such as meteor showers.

3) You don't use a telescope to look at a meteor shower. Ever.

4) With all these astronomers around, didn't anyone notice it was a bit odd that it was dark *all the way round the world at the same time*...? I would have thought the sudden and complete disappearance of the Sun would have provoked more comment than a meteor shower would.

And all this was before the titles.

Other things, like the fact there was a rock on the Moon that was one and a half times the mass of the Earth, yet the Moon only changed its orbit slightly (when, in reality, at that point the Earth would have, at best, been in orbit around the Moon...) were glossed over.

Or how they managed to fit five people, a huge "scanner", a 2-man rocket sled and a missile launch platform into the nosecone of a rocket that can usually only hold three people maximum, and they still had room to get in and out of their space suits? Oh, and the missile had huge stabilising fins and could manoeuvre in huge, graceful curves - in a vacuum. And despite being only about twice the size of an astronaut it had enough power to split the moon in two. Oh, and somehow it mysteriously dissipated the rock with 1.5 Earth masses, without any of it falling to Earth.

I've seen a few reviews saying the actors were "good". Well, they were "good" *for soap opera*, which is what the script degenerated to fairly quickly.

It was *almost* as bad as the movie "The Core". Almost.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Simply incredible
capncrusty30 June 2009
It's as if the writers got together over Domino's pizza, cheap beer and bad weed and said: "Let's take every disaster-movie cliché, one-dimensional character-stereotype and hoary, time-worn situation fiction has ever come up with, lump them in together with crappy special effects, laughable "science" and all the inane pop-psyche observations about the 'human condition' we can think of, then pitch it to the network execs. It's bound to be a hit!" And they were right; the front-office guys bought it (NOTE: I'm assuming that at least one of the aforementioned scribblers was related to one of the execs). And we who watched it lost. This is one of the worst pieces of garbage I have ever seen. Absolutely nothing innovative or original. Absolutely. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Negatron. I think the fact that "Impact" even got past CBS's front door suggests that indeed Hollywood is nearly as dead as GM. If you value your artistic soul, do NOT watch this thing.
21 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ignore the critics.
lowellriggsiam27 June 2009
I am not one much to write a review about anything, but certainly feel the need to defend this. Almost everyone that has been trashing it say they are going to continue to watch it to the end. Why would they do this? Because it's not all that bad. Yes the movie is low budget, yes the movie is imperfect, but the movie works none the less. This series, presents in a simplistic manner, a completely plausible, yet illogical story, but that is the point. The characters developed nicely, the story was compelling, and the writing was acceptable. Watch this movie without cynicism and take in it's entertainment value and it is certain to captivate your attention.
18 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cool! The Moon Blew Up!
rockbroker28 June 2009
Wow! I don't know why, but it does somehow comfort me to know that the major TV networks can still crank out mind numbingly stupid and horrible TV movies. But just like eating TV dinners, watching TV movies hold a perverse charm for me. This one was as stupid as they come. And that treacly - sweet piano music that welled up behind every emotion laden scene ("I'll never leave you kids without saying goodbye"; "your mother and I will always be looking out for you" - Oh my god grandpa, don't die!; "I'm pregnant").

One note of interest: the main character is Alex Kittner. Obviously an homage to one of the greatest disaster/suspense flicks ever - Jaws. Alex Kittner is the boy who is eaten at the beach, the one whose mother slaps Chief Brody in the face for keeping the beaches open. Thank god Alex was resurrected to save the Earth from a killer great white...moon!!!
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Several physical impossibilities
kennethfrankel22 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
As was already pointed out, a brown dwarf is a small star about 13 or more times the mass of Jupiter. A white dwarf is a collapsed object with very dense matter - they would not have been able to hoist a piece with a crane. They made the statement that the Moon used to have 1/6 the mass of the Earth - no! It was (is) 1/81 of the Earth's mass, or 0.0123 -- they mixed this up with the gravity being 1/6 that of the Earth. So on the Moon you would weigh 1/6 of what you weigh here.

A piece of this degenerate matter would either go right through the Moon or the Earth or sink to the center of either body.

The meteor shower is shown to stream in parallel lines in space to the Earth. Usually the meteors would actually seem to originate from a point in space, the radiant. This is like driving through a snow storm. But, to be fair, if the meteors are really coming from a nearby area, they might follow the paths shown.

If the Moon was now twice the mass of the Earth then the Earth would be orbiting the Moon. There is a complex interaction of the Earth, Moon, and Sun and the spin axis, the length of the day, etc. will all be changing.

Then they are shocked to see there may be a collision. You either have a stable orbit, or get flung away, or you crash. That's life with gravity.

Another issue is the constant scenes of the Moon with a bunch of debris hovering around it - either the junk is orbiting or it will fall back down to the surface. The same side of the Moon may not keep facing the Earth - the impact might set it spinning, or the oval orbit could break up the 1:1 resonance with the Earth.

The scenes of things floating up are odd. The gravity of the Moon could balance the Earth's gravity if it had the new mass and was closer. But they attribute this to some electric - magnetic effect. I could not understand the explanation - yes, we are all made of the same stuff, but obviously not everything is affected much by magnets. A white dwarf can have extreme magnetic fields, but you probably would die if it could lift you. Your bodily functions and cell growth would be messed up. The heart beat would be messed up, too.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An original approach to the standard meteor-disaster movie.
TheGodOfDeedsAndWhine21 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Impact is the kind of sci-fi movie you get when you spend the budget on well known (TV) actors and story instead of dumping it all into CGI effects and explosions. The implementation of science from old 1950s movies and unintentionally goofy dialogue result in some laugh out loud moments, but most of the time it's not too distracting.

The main story is original, although quite far fetched at times. As the movie goes on, the situation goes from bad to worse to disastrous... then everything goes to hell. But in a good way.

Luckily Earth is saved thanks to the deployment of a massive amount of different European accents.
25 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Biggest disaster the Science?
mica40426 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
To begin with, some positives: the cast did pretty well with what they were given, most of the subplots were interesting and resolved pretty well, and unlike a lot of similar movies, the emotional layers were played realistically.

So this is not irredeemable, but as with all science fiction, it lives or dies on the science.

There are three ways it can work: 1). I don't care if a movie goes for fantasy science, as long as it is upfront about it and tries to be consistent, or 2). even bad science where the science is fudged for the sake of the story, IF the story is a fun ride. Obviously 3). Good science throughout is best, but how many movies manage that?

This piece tries for option 3, with detailed scientific explanations everywhere, but almost every use of science is wrong. As other reviews show, some people can look past that. Personally the rest of the movie is not good enough to cut them that much slack and in any event I just found the constant stream of errors grate more and more as the film went on. It was almost as is the writers thought that they could just say anything and no-one would notice.

I really don't want to pick the details apart, but one example to highlight my irritation.

The basic premise is that a small piece of highly dense material hits the moon and wackiness ensues. Firstly they call it Brown Dwarf Star material, which is not super dense. The description isn't of that material, but instead of dead cold star material - a black dwarf. That is fine, except that astrophysicists don't think it actually exists yet. Instead of Black Dwarfs there are White Dwarfs, which would be OK for the plot, except you can easily see them. They might have meant Neutron Star material, except that would have been way heavier that they wanted (mass of Sun not Earth) which would wreck the rest of the plot.

Secondly, whichever option they actually meant, something that dense, that fast hitting the moon is likely to shatter it and keep on going. Funnier would be that if the fragment hit the moon and stuck as in the film its momentum (remembering that the fragment was 6-10 times heavier than the moon) would knock the moon completely out of orbit.

Lastly, the object has to be a fragment of White Dwarf/Neutron Star/whatever as a whole one is way too big for the plot to work. The only problem with that is how on earth you break a piece off of one of the densest objects in the universe.

It feels nit-picky to go through things like this, but the same is true of every part of the plot that is science-Dependant. By the time the tanker started floating, while the water nearby was unaffected, and non-metallic objects were flying around, while cars were not, I was not sure whether I should laugh or cry.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It really is rubbish
paulmerron9 February 2013
Honestly guys I have registered with this site, which I will probably never use again, just to stop anyone else wasting their time watching this total piece of inane rubbish. it has absolutely nothing good about it at all with the exception that is was quite well photographed for a TV film It is a typical piece of American melodrama with no finesse or anything else that gives it any justification to exist. America makes some great films, this is NOT one of them. I very much regret not reading any reviews before purchasing it, I have learned my lesson. Anyone who was involved in the making of this film should be very, very ashamed
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Impact really made an impact...
ronnel219528 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
What if the moon that we gaze upon at nights becomes the very cause of the last catastrophe to ever occur on earth before it finally ceases to exist? Impact tells of it and more. In fact it is the very first movie that I ever watched where the moon is picked as the adversary that will wipe out the entire earth and humanity with it.

When I started watching this probably 4-hour movie made for television, I thought that it was just one of those movies dealing with meteors hitting the earth. I was wrong. Little did I know that it would deal with a remnant of a dead star hitting the moon instead. I got stuck to watching the movie at once as I got curious with this variation. Indeed, it was all worth it as the storyline started getting interesting by the minute. It did not occur to me that the writers and creators of the mini-series would be able to come up with such fascinatingly logical consequences to the featured occurrences.

But that was not all. The different stories of the movie were made so simple and yet touching that its simplicity rightly balanced the overall movie impression and perfectly complemented the already complicated scientific events featured therein. Perhaps movies or mini-series should use similar complications matched with simple stories to make it as appealing as this movie.

Be that as it may, Impact did not only highlight the impact of the so-called remnant of a dead star on the moon and the impact of the disturbed moon on the earth, requiring urgent action. More than that, it highlighted the impact of the overall happening on the lives of the different groups of people in the movie and on humanity as a whole. It tells of how a couple of kids who just recently lost their Mom cope with the loss of their remaining guardian, their grandfather and how they face the impending loss of their father to save others. It also tells of a very strong and understanding fiancée, who, despite the uncertainty of coming back alive, let go of her husband-to-be because she believed in him and his far-greater mission. Above all, it tells of two men, who upon being chosen to go to a one-way trip to accomplish a noble assignment, willingly let go of their respective attachments on this world, made sacrifices, and bravely faced dangers and even death for the sake of humanity.

It's just fair for me to say that Impact could very well make an impact on the individual audience. And if you have not watched it, I would highly recommend it.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Same old disaster movie
euroman7129 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I was flipping channels last night and accidentally ran into this movie. It sounded interesting. I only saw the recap of the first part which apparently ran previous weekend (so glad I didn't waste time on that one) and the conclusion looked promising. But, as I started watching it, I quickly realized it was the same kind of movie we've seen before. It's like watching an Armaggedon and Deep Impact put together only with bad graphics and 100% predictable outcome. Why not have some originality.

While I get love science fiction films, this film didn't really stand out. The entire plot can be summed up in one paragraph: Meteor collides with the moon, puts it off orbit on a collision course with earth. Some smart scientists go up to the moon, plant a missile on the surface of the moon and save the earth. Awesome! Who came up with this? And, of course, there is some drama, a pregnant woman, kids with dying grandfather, some special effects from the early 90s involving collisions and train wrecks. I mean, c'mon.

As a disaster movie, this one certainly didn't connect with me. I really didn't care if anyone died or not, if moon collided with earth or not. Armaggedon was much better in terms of graphics, story line, and characters. Deep Impact was also better, I felt for the main characters.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Much better than expected.
exorcist1998-115 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I went into this expecting a low budget sci-fi film with play it by numbers acting and dreadful effects but was really surprised. I thought the acting in this was excellent, as was the story (whether its plausible or not does not bother me). The effects were really well done with only the train wreck being a bit weak. The scenes of the moon looking huge in the sky were very eerie and will stay in the mind as they did look terrific.

I thought the running time of 3 hours really suited it as well although I watched it all in one go, you can easily spread this over 2 nights because the break means there is a bit of a cliff hanger.

I also must give a mention to the score as that was again first rate.

Although I am a bit of a sucker when it come to disaster type movies, I put this right up there with Armageddon and Deep Impact. It just shows that you can make a good action film on a limited budget and not compromise.

11 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Oh. Cannot be worse.
decrobyron28 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, I need the -10 for 10 for Vote.

Just watched this on ABC. TOTAL WASTE OF THE TIME!!!

1. Going to the moon/falling star - total copy of Deep Impact.

Plot is quite similar. Going to the falling star. Plant the bomb. somebody dies, somebody comes back. All the countries help each other. Yes, we've been that.

2. Science... common, what are you thinking?

The missile flying with fin in no air space. Just one nozzle. Hah!

The landing module with only one nozzle. Great. Director gotta watch some space science documentary.

Gravity and Electromagnetic(EM) power. Sure... As Electronics Major student, I gotta laugh or cry.

EM with bright blue light? Great Effect. Sure...

3. Plot? there is no such thing.

Sometimes too fast, fast, too slow or, slow. Horrible acting, too. Granny and Kids scene was not needed at all.

4. HORRIBLE Computer Graphics.

Floting ship looks like 90's game CG. It would be cool at least Atlanta Olympic Game. Common, there is Star Trek and Transformer 2. Are you kidding me? Looked like the Co-ed graduation work. Actually Everything looked like the Co-ed work with some budget.

5. There is no excuse.

I know it is TV movie. So, I didn't expect much. If it was on the Movie Theater and I had to pay, I'd torch the theater. and sending the threat letter to the IMDb to change the vote margin to -30 ~ 10. And, still shouting that there is no -100.

6. Finally...

Somebody give my time back. Is God punishing me by didn't go the church night service?
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Is the American public really this dumb or do most directors erroneously believe this to be true?
Shawn Connelly25 June 2009
I'm offering this movie a 5 because I feel generous. I mean at least, the kids were looking through the correct side of the telescope and they even depicted a meteor shower relatively accurately. Well, except that the full moon would have made watching a meteor shower much more difficult and that it appeared to be night time, simultaneously, everywhere on Earth. erroneously

Oh my... and did they really need to get a religious debate going in the first few minutes? Really? Was it necessary? Anyhow, this with all the other scientific talk... was mostly nonsense. BTW, Astronomers don't use telescopes to watch meteor showers! Another ridiculous moment is when Natasha Henstridge character kept stating she didn't understand something she clearly should have understood (hint: when an object takes on significantly more mass - Kepler's law clearly states what will happen. It is as if she and the other scientists are unaware of basic physics).

The meteorite hits were rather anticlimactic (read quite unrealistic).

What else did they get right (which helped earn the 5 out of 10)? - Meteorites vs Meteors (right) - Meteorites are not magnetic (mostly true)

Bottom line, this is just a story. Certainly, the events depicted could happen but the reality would be very different. I would have given this story a 7 out of 10 if it had ended at part 1. Part 2, while rather emotional, played out like any other disaster movie with a rather predictable ending.
10 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Sorry waste of $14,000,000
BengoAbroad24 October 2012
This would appear to be the 44th review. I'm amazed to find a few of the previous 43 actually LIKED the movie! Good science fiction usually at least has good science in it - not this film! Good films usually have good pacing - not this film! Entertaining movies usually have great editing and special effects - not this film! HOW DID IT E V E R win a 'Leo' special effects award??!? Some weren't bad, but hardly stunning. And I lost count of the scenes of mystified scientists staring at meaningless screens. IF A FILM MAKER CAN SECURE A $14,000,000 BUDGET, why not try making a GREAT $14,000,000 movie, instead of an utterly shoddy attempt at a $100,000,000 movie? Granted, this script would never have justified any more budget, but then - throw the script away and make something worth making! Oh well - I guess that's Hollywood (or where-ever it was made!)
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
That's just...asinine.
billhpc18 June 2009
I saw a couple of commercials and hoped that this might be a tolerable weekend movie. Then I read online summaries, and now this sounds just too stupid to have even been filmed (and this from someone who's watched "Plan 9 From Outer Space" more than once). asteroid hits the moon (plausible) and changes its orbit (no doubt) so that the Earth is threatened (the only reason we all care to watch!). So far, so good.

But, the asteroid strike on the moon causes random periods of zero gravity at random points on the earth's surface. Random gravity. One rock plus one rock equals "random gravity."

That's just...asinine. Natasha aside, I shan't waste my time. There's "suspension of disbelief" and there's "that's just...asinine."
17 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews