Collision Earth

I usually make an effort to be fair with ratings, review writing and summaries, but I make exceptions that are so bad they make me angry instead of laughing about how awful it is. Collission Earth isn't perhaps the very worst of SyFy's movies, but I do think it is down there as one of their worst. Some of their awful movies, and in all honesty it's too many to count, do have some novelty value, but Collission Earth doesn't even have that.

Visuals: Not the worst asset, but that doesn't mean they're good. The scenery is shot in a dull look, and the editing is haphazard in alternative to slick and efficient. The special effects are simply put, bad, fake rather than realistic and cheap rather than lavish. Again like I have said a few times, I get that it's low budget, but that still doesn't excuse not putting enough effort(or I don't think so anyway) into them.

Music: Nothing special. Forgettable and sometimes overbearing, with tempos and rhythms that actually feel as though they alone are slowing the film down.

Script: Quite possibly the worst asset. So much cheese in the dialogue that even the biggest burger bap wouldn't cover it, and aimless exposition that not just slows the film down but has you reaching for the remote. That's not all. Like Earth's Final Hours and SyFy movies with numbers in front(2012: Supernova), Collission Earth is full of scientific errors. Scientific errors so vast and so inexcusable(detailed brilliantly in one of the previous reviews) that even the worst scientist in the world would fall into a coma thinking about them.

Story: Almost as bad. Sluggishly paced, full of clichéd situations and hopelessly predictable in that you do have a pretty good idea what is going to happen next.

Characters: So bland that by halfway through I still didn't care a tuppence about them. Also not that much different than the typical stereotype that litter and in most instances plague SyFy's resume.

Acting: Nobody seems to be really involved. Even when somebody tries to bring some life(and you'd be lucky to find even that), it feels overdone and unnatural.

Overall, a terrible movie and intelligence- insulting. 0.5-1/10 Bethany Cox

This is not brain science folks! Obviously this is less then great. If it was an academy award winner I'd be tearing it apart too, but it is what it is - a made for SyFy movie!

Of course there are a lot of problems with this movie from bad CGI to scientific errors (in a science based film!). Depite all of that, the story was original, and the drama kept the movie going.

If your looking for a good movie to watch choose "Armageddon" (1998) or "2012" (2009). If you just like watching an OK flick, this one will do.

-- They want -- 10 lines of text -- for a complete review.. ? -- No wonder why there are so many 'books' written here. -- OK that should be enough for them ;o)

I admit my bar wasn't that high. After all it is a made for TV, low budget, SyFy movie. I am willing to forgive mediocre FX and CGI - after all our expectations for those things has been raised to high art thanks to all the big budget flicks out there. I am willing to suspend disbelief in order to enjoy a decent action or science fiction story. I don't mind chuckling at cliché plot devices when they're tongue-in-cheek. I happily do these all these things when a film is so unbelievably bad that it becomes an unintentional comedy. This movie does none of these things for me. For a science-based plot the writing can't pass even a cursory understanding of a grade 9 curriculum. Not in one instance or two but over and over and over again. The effect was akin to being grabbed by the cranium and shaken violently out of the story so that you are left staring at all the other otherwise forgivable weaknesses and amateurish plot devices. I have seen worse movies, though only a few, and I now add this to the list of bad movies that make the mediocre ones much more enjoyable by comparison.

How do you describe this film? Agony. Stupid. Dumb. Amateurish.

First, it takes place in a time when we have a space ship exploring Mercury. And we have a gigantic ship in orbit capable of creating a giant magnetic pulse. Yet is is set in the present, with flip cell phones and old cars. There was no attempt to set this in the future. Why? I guess it would have been too expensive.

Second, the story is just dumb. Mercury has been thrown out of orbit and it is heading towards Earth. Some former scientist who has been fired by the government, who's wife just happens to be on the ship around Mercury, has to save the planet, even though he is being hunted by the government.

Third, the special effects are not even as good as in the 1950's B films. Green screen shots that are so obvious that a third grader could do better.

And finally, the acting that is, well, again, a third grader in a school play would be better.

Enough. I am angry that I wasted the 90 minutes watching this thing and the 10 minutes writing this review. Save yourself. Turn your TV off and just stare at the blank screen for 90 minutes. You will enjoy that more.

Normally I'm super critical of this type of film. In this case, however, there are some redeeming qualities that drew me in (partially anyway). Sure, the script needs tidying up and the scientific errors are a little distracting. But the acting is basically sound and believable with some good character development (Matthew in particular). Special effects are largely very nice.

I would say, as it stands, it could hold its own with most episodes in the Stargate franchise. With not too much work, there is the makings of a decent film here.

The question is, who approved it in its present state and why? It could have been so much better with so little work.