IMDb RATING
5.5/10
3.8K
YOUR RATING
A luminary crashes on the moon, causing to change its orbit and head straight toward Earth. With less than 40 days, scientists are in a desperate race to launch a lunar mission that will sav... Read allA luminary crashes on the moon, causing to change its orbit and head straight toward Earth. With less than 40 days, scientists are in a desperate race to launch a lunar mission that will save both planetary objects from mutual destructionA luminary crashes on the moon, causing to change its orbit and head straight toward Earth. With less than 40 days, scientists are in a desperate race to launch a lunar mission that will save both planetary objects from mutual destruction
- Awards
- 1 win & 4 nominations total
Browse episodes
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- GoofsThere are several scenes, particularly at the start of the movie that ignore the fact that the world has multiple time zones. It's not night everywhere.
- How many seasons does Impact have?Powered by Alexa
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content