Astéroïde

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.

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.

A very strong "electromagnetic radiation spike" rocks a small space crew from Earth as they fly around Mercury and the Sun. This event, which isn't at all clear until later in the running time, appears to morph into a video screen in the classroom of professorial Kirk Acevedo (as James Preston). He lectures about an asteroid potentially causing devastation and destruction on Earth. In the sparsely attended lecture hall, his students appear bored. Note, the mysterious opening event appears to be a tape Mr. Acevedo screens; it is not, the incident really happened. This incident causes Mercury to leave orbit and head toward Earth. Moreover, the incoming planet is magnetized, causing objects to fly into the sky. Acevedo would like to stop the collision, but his "Project 7" has been defunded...

Acevedo's wife Diane Farr (as Victoria "Vic" Preston) is on board the opening space ship. His bespectacled sidekick Adam Greydon Reid (as Matthew Keyes) makes a good impression. Helping are tech-savvy student Chad Krowchuk (as Christopher "Chad" Weaver) and cute companion Jessica Parker Kennedy (as Brooke Adamson). Ryan Landels' story kindly avoids the overused asteroid hit and hearkens back to a 1950s "worlds collide" plot, with magnetism added. Alas, the budget and schedule don't allow for much adherence to what might really happen. The scenes at a government facility are director Paul Ziller's highlights, with those transparent columns we see moving across the screen. The man special effect is the dependable but lamentable "shaky camera" technique.

**** Collision Earth (3/26/11) Paul Ziller ~ Kirk Acevedo, Chad Krowchuk, Diane Farr, Adam Greydon Reid

Because its a made for TV movie on a much smaller budget than the usual Hollywood fare I always try to look for the small positives than pick out the disappointing negatives...but this was a difficult one to judge.

The plot is pretty thin and most definitely not based on any science or engineering that comes close to real world truths. At best it can be described as 'fanciful', though its often closer to ludicrous as Mercury somehow gets forced out its orbit on a collision course with earth - a variation on the old asteroid theme I suppose so nice to think the writers at least tried even if the final result was less than perfect.

What didn't ring so well was the old cliché of the disgraced/renegade scientist being the anti-hero of the plot. Even the squeezing in of his Astronaut wife who by pure coincidence is on a spaceship journeying to the doomed Mercury isn't enough to distract from this oldest and most annoying of SyFy/Disaster characters.

Talking of the actors its a fair lineup of B/TV-stars but even this isn't enough to save them from over/underacting and the terrible screenplay and script. As the primary lead Kirk Acevedo ensures that the term Wooden Expression will continue in acting circles, whilst Dianne Farr as his Astronaut wife is entirely wasted in ridiculous space drama segments.

After the space drama the more earth based effects of the floating/falling cars are absolutely laughable and definitely second rate CGI, especially when it appears nothing else is magnetic in 'Seattle' it seems.

This was pretty poor even considering the less than good competition. It wasn't so much a major point of failure that affects the rating but rather a massive dose of boredom as I completely failed to get excited by what was altogether a rather by-the-numbers movie. .... +A different premise +Decent cast (but wasted!) -Bored and wooden acting -Poor effects -Very,very Clichéd

So that's 2+, 3-

Watchable, laughable, forgettable -4/10