Y2K

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?