66 avaliações
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.
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.
- MartianOctocretr5
- 11 de jul. de 2009
- Link permanente
- marinus-9
- 17 de abr. de 2009
- Link permanente
That's the best thing you can do. It's a made for TV movie, and believe me it doesn't transcend that stature, nor does it really try to. Once you get it through your head that it won't have the production values of a Michael Bay movie or the big name stars, it's actually alright for what it is. It's a globe spanning disaster movie with a pretty cool premise - the moon hitting the planet.
Because it's on TV, the only thing it asks of you is your time. Honestly, if you don't like it (and you'll know immediately whether or not) you can just as easily click away. I won't blame you if you do, but if you're up for a disaster flick that's halfway decent and free to watch, you can do much, much worse. Yes, the acting can be, well, bad at times, but for the most part it's serviceable. After all, you just need the characters to act shocked and sad at the news and events so yes, they do that well enough.
If I had to pay to see something like this, yeah I'd be upset. But it's free and with the summer TV season in pretty bad shape it's a nice way to blow off four hours. It's completely inoffensive and that's leagues better than most made for TV movies.
Because it's on TV, the only thing it asks of you is your time. Honestly, if you don't like it (and you'll know immediately whether or not) you can just as easily click away. I won't blame you if you do, but if you're up for a disaster flick that's halfway decent and free to watch, you can do much, much worse. Yes, the acting can be, well, bad at times, but for the most part it's serviceable. After all, you just need the characters to act shocked and sad at the news and events so yes, they do that well enough.
If I had to pay to see something like this, yeah I'd be upset. But it's free and with the summer TV season in pretty bad shape it's a nice way to blow off four hours. It's completely inoffensive and that's leagues better than most made for TV movies.
- thirdimpact1
- 14 de jun. de 2009
- Link permanente
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.
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.
- oldbob39
- 28 de jun. de 2009
- Link permanente
- kennethfrankel
- 21 de jun. de 2009
- Link permanente
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.
- spgdppr
- 17 de jun. de 2023
- Link permanente
Yeah, I kind of got a kick out of it, but not for the reasons the film-makers intended. This is one of the few disaster movies that makes "Armaggeddon" look like it was written by geniuses and "The Core" like it was made as an instructional film for use in college geology courses. The wide liberties taken with actual fact (and common sense) make for a rollicking time, but it scares me that we're failing in educating the youth of today.
I mean, this is only 3 hours long, but in that time you learn that the screenwriters (1) think that the moon has a magnetic field emanating from a core, (2) believe that the "laws of gravity" are that "little objects are attracted to big objects," (3) don't know that cruise missiles are air-breathers and won't operate or even steer in the absence of an atmosphere, (4) don't understand the difference between electromagnetics and gravity, (5) think that it takes longer to walk back to town from a car breakdown than to program, launch, and deliver 87 rockets with nuclear device payloads all the way to the moon, (6) have some bizarre ideas about what a brown dwarf star is, and so forth.
But it IS entertaining. Just make sure to have a chat with your kids afterwards to make sure that (a) your son didn't spend the entire movie following Natsha Henstridge's boobs, and (b) that your daughter understands that the science end of it was all BS so she won't be afraid to get her graduate degree in physics. After all, any exposure to the "scientists" in this film is an almost guaranteed turn-off for budding researchers.
I mean, this is only 3 hours long, but in that time you learn that the screenwriters (1) think that the moon has a magnetic field emanating from a core, (2) believe that the "laws of gravity" are that "little objects are attracted to big objects," (3) don't know that cruise missiles are air-breathers and won't operate or even steer in the absence of an atmosphere, (4) don't understand the difference between electromagnetics and gravity, (5) think that it takes longer to walk back to town from a car breakdown than to program, launch, and deliver 87 rockets with nuclear device payloads all the way to the moon, (6) have some bizarre ideas about what a brown dwarf star is, and so forth.
But it IS entertaining. Just make sure to have a chat with your kids afterwards to make sure that (a) your son didn't spend the entire movie following Natsha Henstridge's boobs, and (b) that your daughter understands that the science end of it was all BS so she won't be afraid to get her graduate degree in physics. After all, any exposure to the "scientists" in this film is an almost guaranteed turn-off for budding researchers.
- innocuous
- 8 de nov. de 2009
- Link permanente
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.
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.
- paul_m_haakonsen
- 25 de nov. de 2023
- Link permanente
- andymcguckin
- 3 de jul. de 2009
- Link permanente
- TheGodOfDeedsAndWhine
- 20 de abr. de 2009
- Link permanente
- myjerkygameaddy
- 18 de abr. de 2009
- Link permanente
Let's face it folks this is a low budget made for TV flick. I'm looking for entertainment and the premise of the moon hitting the earth is a spell-binding one.
It's also Sci-Fi so it's fine to stretch the facts. I'm a professional writer and will admit I'm a bit surprised there wasn't more research on the "real physics." A few hours with a Cal-Tech Professor would have cleared that up, especially regarding Kepler's Law and the difference between magnetism & gravity. But really who cares! If you want to know astrophysics, take a course at your local community college!
Anyway the movie is well paced and edited. Every scene advances the story line nicely. I didn't have time to pick apart details. CGI can be weak, but it gets the story told. Can you say the words, "LOW BUDGET." Despite "Impact's" fours hours the film never lost my attention. That's my definition of a "good, OK, film." I include the "sleepy factor" in rating pictures and I was wide awake for all 240 minutes.
Remember the Walt Disney quote, "The Plausible Impossible?" Sure fits here.
It's also Sci-Fi so it's fine to stretch the facts. I'm a professional writer and will admit I'm a bit surprised there wasn't more research on the "real physics." A few hours with a Cal-Tech Professor would have cleared that up, especially regarding Kepler's Law and the difference between magnetism & gravity. But really who cares! If you want to know astrophysics, take a course at your local community college!
Anyway the movie is well paced and edited. Every scene advances the story line nicely. I didn't have time to pick apart details. CGI can be weak, but it gets the story told. Can you say the words, "LOW BUDGET." Despite "Impact's" fours hours the film never lost my attention. That's my definition of a "good, OK, film." I include the "sleepy factor" in rating pictures and I was wide awake for all 240 minutes.
Remember the Walt Disney quote, "The Plausible Impossible?" Sure fits here.
- tlmedia
- 5 de set. de 2009
- Link permanente
- mark-us_teixeira
- 1 de ago. de 2009
- Link permanente
- Peet42
- 23 de jan. de 2010
- Link permanente
It's as if the writers got together over Domino's pizza, cheap beer and bad weed and said: "Let's take every disaster-movie cliché, one-dimensional character-stereotype and hoary, time-worn situation fiction has ever come up with, lump them in together with crappy special effects, laughable "science" and all the inane pop-psyche observations about the 'human condition' we can think of, then pitch it to the network execs. It's bound to be a hit!" And they were right; the front-office guys bought it (NOTE: I'm assuming that at least one of the aforementioned scribblers was related to one of the execs). And we who watched it lost. This is one of the worst pieces of garbage I have ever seen. Absolutely nothing innovative or original. Absolutely. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Negatron. I think the fact that "Impact" even got past CBS's front door suggests that indeed Hollywood is nearly as dead as GM. If you value your artistic soul, do NOT watch this thing.
- capncrusty
- 29 de jun. de 2009
- Link permanente
- vchimpanzee
- 29 de jun. de 2009
- Link permanente
Its a cocktail of movies what if you mixed Armageddon, Deep Impact and split the moon the result would be this fun day of destruction mini series...heck I even bought the DVD. I enjoyed this very much its not your run of the mill disaster flick nope its not that at all so many cliché's mixed in and some turned on their heads. Natasha Henstridge is beautiful and just talented enough to pull this off mix in David James Elliott and James Cromwell as a grieving grandpa and you have a movie with family values, including a few tear jerking moments. The VFX are good enough for a TV Movie even if the plot leaves you in suspended belief but hey thats what these movies are about What If? I enjoyed it more than Category 7 a must of disaster film fans.
- elliott78212
- 3 de set. de 2011
- Link permanente
Wow! I don't know why, but it does somehow comfort me to know that the major TV networks can still crank out mind numbingly stupid and horrible TV movies. But just like eating TV dinners, watching TV movies hold a perverse charm for me. This one was as stupid as they come. And that treacly - sweet piano music that welled up behind every emotion laden scene ("I'll never leave you kids without saying goodbye"; "your mother and I will always be looking out for you" - Oh my god grandpa, don't die!; "I'm pregnant").
One note of interest: the main character is Alex Kittner. Obviously an homage to one of the greatest disaster/suspense flicks ever - Jaws. Alex Kittner is the boy who is eaten at the beach, the one whose mother slaps Chief Brody in the face for keeping the beaches open. Thank god Alex was resurrected to save the Earth from a killer great white...moon!!!
One note of interest: the main character is Alex Kittner. Obviously an homage to one of the greatest disaster/suspense flicks ever - Jaws. Alex Kittner is the boy who is eaten at the beach, the one whose mother slaps Chief Brody in the face for keeping the beaches open. Thank god Alex was resurrected to save the Earth from a killer great white...moon!!!
- rockbroker
- 27 de jun. de 2009
- Link permanente
"Impact" is a mini-series that presents a compelling premise but falls short in execution, earning it a 6 out of 10 rating. The show explores the aftermath of a catastrophic meteor impact on Earth, focusing on the struggles of survivors.
One of the series' strengths is its concept. The idea of a global disaster caused by a meteor strike is inherently intriguing, and the initial episodes effectively build tension and suspense as the impending catastrophe looms. The visual effects used to depict the meteor impact are also commendable, creating a sense of realism that adds to the show's intensity.
However, where "Impact" falters is in its character development and pacing. Many of the characters lack depth and come across as one-dimensional, making it difficult to fully invest in their fates. The ensemble cast does their best with the material, but the writing often lets them down. Additionally, the series struggles to maintain a consistent pace, with some episodes feeling rushed while others drag on, causing the narrative to lose momentum.
Furthermore, "Impact" suffers from predictability. The plot often follows familiar disaster movie tropes, making it easy to anticipate certain plot twists and character arcs. This lack of originality can be frustrating for viewers seeking a more innovative storyline.
Despite these shortcomings, "Impact" does manage to deliver some thrilling and emotionally charged moments. The survival scenarios and moral dilemmas faced by the characters can be engaging, providing occasional glimpses of the show's potential.
In conclusion, "Impact" is a mini-series with a captivating premise that doesn't fully realize its potential. While it offers some exciting moments and impressive visuals, it struggles with character development, pacing, and originality. A 6 out of 10 rating reflects a show that falls short of being truly impactful but still manages to provide some entertainment value for fans of disaster-themed dramas.
One of the series' strengths is its concept. The idea of a global disaster caused by a meteor strike is inherently intriguing, and the initial episodes effectively build tension and suspense as the impending catastrophe looms. The visual effects used to depict the meteor impact are also commendable, creating a sense of realism that adds to the show's intensity.
However, where "Impact" falters is in its character development and pacing. Many of the characters lack depth and come across as one-dimensional, making it difficult to fully invest in their fates. The ensemble cast does their best with the material, but the writing often lets them down. Additionally, the series struggles to maintain a consistent pace, with some episodes feeling rushed while others drag on, causing the narrative to lose momentum.
Furthermore, "Impact" suffers from predictability. The plot often follows familiar disaster movie tropes, making it easy to anticipate certain plot twists and character arcs. This lack of originality can be frustrating for viewers seeking a more innovative storyline.
Despite these shortcomings, "Impact" does manage to deliver some thrilling and emotionally charged moments. The survival scenarios and moral dilemmas faced by the characters can be engaging, providing occasional glimpses of the show's potential.
In conclusion, "Impact" is a mini-series with a captivating premise that doesn't fully realize its potential. While it offers some exciting moments and impressive visuals, it struggles with character development, pacing, and originality. A 6 out of 10 rating reflects a show that falls short of being truly impactful but still manages to provide some entertainment value for fans of disaster-themed dramas.
- douglas-99101
- 10 de set. de 2023
- Link permanente
- vfrickey
- 19 de nov. de 2010
- Link permanente
- JRmf
- 5 de mai. de 2009
- Link permanente
- mica404
- 25 de jan. de 2013
- Link permanente
I am not one much to write a review about anything, but certainly feel the need to defend this. Almost everyone that has been trashing it say they are going to continue to watch it to the end. Why would they do this? Because it's not all that bad. Yes the movie is low budget, yes the movie is imperfect, but the movie works none the less. This series, presents in a simplistic manner, a completely plausible, yet illogical story, but that is the point. The characters developed nicely, the story was compelling, and the writing was acceptable. Watch this movie without cynicism and take in it's entertainment value and it is certain to captivate your attention.
- lowellriggsiam
- 26 de jun. de 2009
- Link permanente
I'm offering this movie a 5 because I feel generous. I mean at least, the kids were looking through the correct side of the telescope and they even depicted a meteor shower relatively accurately. Well, except that the full moon would have made watching a meteor shower much more difficult and that it appeared to be night time, simultaneously, everywhere on Earth. erroneously
Oh my... and did they really need to get a religious debate going in the first few minutes? Really? Was it necessary? Anyhow, this with all the other scientific talk... was mostly nonsense. BTW, Astronomers don't use telescopes to watch meteor showers! Another ridiculous moment is when Natasha Henstridge character kept stating she didn't understand something she clearly should have understood (hint: when an object takes on significantly more mass - Kepler's law clearly states what will happen. It is as if she and the other scientists are unaware of basic physics).
The meteorite hits were rather anticlimactic (read quite unrealistic).
What else did they get right (which helped earn the 5 out of 10)? - Meteorites vs Meteors (right) - Meteorites are not magnetic (mostly true)
Bottom line, this is just a story. Certainly, the events depicted could happen but the reality would be very different. I would have given this story a 7 out of 10 if it had ended at part 1. Part 2, while rather emotional, played out like any other disaster movie with a rather predictable ending.
Oh my... and did they really need to get a religious debate going in the first few minutes? Really? Was it necessary? Anyhow, this with all the other scientific talk... was mostly nonsense. BTW, Astronomers don't use telescopes to watch meteor showers! Another ridiculous moment is when Natasha Henstridge character kept stating she didn't understand something she clearly should have understood (hint: when an object takes on significantly more mass - Kepler's law clearly states what will happen. It is as if she and the other scientists are unaware of basic physics).
The meteorite hits were rather anticlimactic (read quite unrealistic).
What else did they get right (which helped earn the 5 out of 10)? - Meteorites vs Meteors (right) - Meteorites are not magnetic (mostly true)
Bottom line, this is just a story. Certainly, the events depicted could happen but the reality would be very different. I would have given this story a 7 out of 10 if it had ended at part 1. Part 2, while rather emotional, played out like any other disaster movie with a rather predictable ending.
- connelly-shawn
- 24 de jun. de 2009
- Link permanente
- wapsvandelft
- 15 de abr. de 2010
- Link permanente