Impatto dal cielo

The concept was not unique, but the details leading to the 3 hour crisis was very original. The CGI was pretty good, up until the final few minutes. I liked most of the characters. And I cried a river during the last 25-30 minutes. And watching this with commercial interruptions was a nightmare. Other than that...a nice idea. Nevertheless, the story could have been compressed into something a LOT shorter then over 3 hours. There was too much time spent on relationships between the main scientist (looking like she was going to a formal event all during the movie;), and the scientist who was a widowed father; too much time spent between the widowed father and his children; too too much time spent either the European scientist and his fiancée; etc. And James Cromwell was wasted except for a few emotional minutes. So if you cut down these interactions, up the CGI quality for the last 20 minutes...you have a masterpiece.

I had never actually heard about this 2009 mini-series before now in 2023, as I happened to stumble upon it by random chance. And seeing it was a natural disaster-themed mini-series, of course I opted to watch it.

Sure, I wasn't harboring any expectations to this mini-series, as such mini-series tend to be rather questionable affairs. But I still opted to give "Impact" the benefit of the doubt.

The storyline in "Impact" was actually enjoyable. Sure, one can certainly say that it was straightforward, and somewhat generic for a natural disaster-themed mini-series. But it turned out to be entertaining. And yeah, it was predictable, so very, very predictable.

I was surprised to see the cast ensemble in the mini-series, with the likes of David James Elliott, Natasha Henstridge, James Cromwell and Steven Culp. The acting performances in "Impact" were good, and that definitely helped to add to the overall impression of the mini-series.

Visually then "Impact" was adequate enough. Some of the CGI effects were fair and passed as being watchable and believable, whereas other CGI effects were shoddy, questionable and looked like something from an early 2000s computer game.

"Impact" is entertaining if you enjoy movies and mini-series about natural disasters. However, keep in mind that the storyline is somewhat generic, and rather predictable. But it definitely is worth sitting down to watch and spend 3 hours and 7 minutes on. However, it is not something that can sustain more than a single viewing.

My rating of "Impact" lands on a six out of ten stars.

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.

For a made for TV movie, it wasn't all that bad. Apart from the cheesy effects and bad acting, a good way to kill an afternoon while waiting for something better to come on. The worst part of this was the father. What lousy acting. No emotion or warmth. Much potential for a genuinely good story but much better suited to the big screen. The two leads were obviously hired for their looks, not their acting skills. Better actors would have made this a much better film. Despite this, suspend all belief and give it a shot. There is much worse out there. At least there's the beautiful Natasha Hentstridge to look at.

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.