Missione Mercurio

There isn't one bit of remote possibility to this Science-Fiction and that automatically takes it to that arena of the absurd and lands it in a place called Hooterville. Almost every scene has a defiance of known Physics. So don't check your brain at the door, pull it from your skull and throw it on the floor and stomp it into mush.

OK, now you may be able to enjoy this Apocalyptic story that is nothing if not full of one crazy concept after another. People die horribly but no one seems to care, there are bigger fish frying, namely our planet. This badly acted Made-for-TV Movie cannot be faulted for trying to be exciting for it has many cliffhangers. It is all done with TV style CGI that is colorful, but shoddy.

You may find yourself actually rooting for more deaths and perhaps even an atypical ending of the title coming true. But it seems the wrong ones die and Earth is not one of them. This would have been so much better if it did and might have made this worth a view. If you like them bombastically BAD you're gonna love this one.

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.

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

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

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)