Movies: 18470 | TV Series: 3282 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 65898 GB
- Forgot password?
- | Register
- | Support
- | FAQ
- | Help
Download, Watch online Impact part 1 Movie.
| Genres: | ActionAdventureFant |
| Starring: | Gerard Plunkett, James Cromwell, Colin Cunningham, Samantha Ferris, Natasha Henstridge, Ty Olsson, Michael Kopsa |
| Director(s): | Mike Rohl |
| Country: | Germany, USA, Canada |
| Year: | 2008 |
| IMDB Rating: | 5.6 |
While the entire world watches the largest meteor shower in 10,000 years, a rogue asteroid, hidden by the meteor field, smashes into the moon in a tremendous explosion of rock and debris. Fragments from the asteroid, and even from the moon itself, penetrate Earths atmosphere and make impact. Even though the initial damage is minimal, nerves are frayed throughout the planet. There is significant physical damage to the lunar surface, but experts quickly conclude there will be no lasting ramifications. Then strange anomalies begin to manifest themselves on Earth. It starts small - cell phone disruptions, unusual static charges and odd tidal behavior. The worlds leading scientists, including Alex Kittner, Maddie Rhodes and Roland Emerson, begin piecing together evidence that suggests the moons properties, and its orbit, may have been permanently altered. Their fears are realized when the anomalies increase to the point where the effect of simulated gravity is being manipulated by increased electromagnetic surges coming from the moon. People, cars and other objects are rendered momentarily weightless in random, isolated areas around the globe. Alex, Maddie, Roland and the rest of their team soon discover something far worse - the moons new orbit has put it on a collision course with Earth! The world now has 39 days to stop it or Earth, and all of mankind, will perish. After a failed attempt by the United States to destroy the moon, our heroes bring all the countries of the world together in one last hope for humanity - an international mission to the moon itself where astronauts will attempt to reverse the magnetic effects and restore the moon to its original orbit. Alex, whose children are now missing after the latest rampage of anti-gravity, is emotionally torn as he must now join Roland and two other astronauts on the Earth saving mission into space. It is a race against time as the two celestial bodies are drawn closer and closer to impact, the world united, watching and praying, the survival of mankind in the balance.
 |
Impact part 1 (iPod) | Resolution: 480x272 px | Total Size: 248 Mb |
|
|
 |
Impact part 1 (DivX) | Resolution: 640x352 px | Total Size: 696 Mb |
|
Movie Photos: We have taken some photos of "Impact part 1". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitor Reviews: (20)
drhugh 15 May 2012
Science vs magic
Arthur C. Clark did the film world a great disservice when he made thememorable comment that "Any sufficiently advanced technology isindistinguishable from magic."Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)Film producers NOW think that SCIENCE = MAGIC. Really, folks, if anyilliterate can make a science-fiction movie, why do universities BOTHERgiving film degrees? There was a highly-readable article in the April2009 Scientific American describing what is a "brown dwarf". A whitedwarf, a superdense left-over from the life-cycle of a star like oursun, cools down to a BLACK dwarf, and certainly that would screw up theorbit of the moon and make a nasty hole. Perhaps the censor boardwouldn't let them use the term "black dwarf" with the word"penetrate"...Fiction or no, it is simply wrong to mislead the public, poor ignorantsods that they are, about something any fool could learn on Wikipedia.Not that anyone would look it up, since the movies tell us everythingwe need to know. And if anything doesn't make sense, or if Spartacus iswearing a Rolex, then "Wizards did it"!
oldbob39 14 May 2012
cute kids, cool grandpa, lousy science and writing.
Hey, did anyone else notice that the patch on the general's sleeve wasfor the First Cavalry? What!?! Cavalry? Couldn't they at least haveinvented 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 goclean my closet or something. But I must also admit that I'm biased bymy own history. I worked for NASA for 37 years, then taught high schoolfor six, so the stunning level of bad science really grated on mysensibility. As someone noted, couldn't the writers have at leasttalked an amateur astronomer into critiquing the script. Maybe he couldhave explained the law of the conservation of momentum, and if thewriters were quick studies, they might have progressed to complextopics like basic orbital mechanics.There were redeeming features, of course. The little girl provedherself a fine young actress with her expressive face in that videoconversation with her dad, and the grandpa was splendid, just as he wasin "Babe". (I'd like to look for more of his movies to rent: I enjoyhis work.) And, of course, all us old-timers know that all female spacescientists 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 onTV. Too much of the US population is nearly illiterate in science. AndI am not talking about the kids in school now. This movie was shown inprime time, so was presumably intended for adult audiences. But this isthe population who agree, in the majority, with the statement "earlyhumans often had to defend their caves against marauding dinosaurs."And let's not forget there are politicians that claim to not believethe theory that is actually the fundamental guiding principle ofcontemporary biology. With a little more effort, some of the majorflaws in the story could have been corrected and the audience mighthave gone away with a little better understanding of the underlyingscience. Yes, it's science FICTION, but fiction still needs internalself-consistency and a clear understanding of its own premises andtheir consequences. (Think "Jurassic Park" as a good example.)Some of us have worked hard to educate this country in science, andseeing this movie is so discouraging, as if taunting us by saying weare never going to win.
11 May 2012
Not Science Fiction at it's best.
This review is from: Impact (DVD) For me this movie was just okay. In many ways, it is a poor man's version of "Deep Impact". This would be "Deep Impact" without the big name stars, lesser special effects, and a lesser quality script.I love good science fiction, but good science fiction movies are hard to come by. This movie is very slow. This is not entirely bad as long as the slowness leads to good character development, or the addition of quality plot.In the case of this movie, there is too much in the romantic parts, poor acting on the part of the child actors, and cliché upon cliché.I downloaded this movie to my Tivo. $3.99, I guess it was worth that much.
ronnel2195 11 May 2012
Impact really made an impact...
What if the moon that we gaze upon at nights becomes the very cause ofthe last catastrophe to ever occur on earth before it finally ceases toexist? Impact tells of it and more. In fact it is the very first moviethat I ever watched where the moon is picked as the adversary that willwipe out the entire earth and humanity with it.When I started watching this probably 4-hour movie made for television,I thought that it was just one of those movies dealing with meteorshitting the earth. I was wrong. Little did I know that it would dealwith a remnant of a dead star hitting the moon instead. I got stuck towatching the movie at once as I got curious with this variation.Indeed, it was all worth it as the storyline started gettinginteresting by the minute. It did not occur to me that the writers andcreators of the mini-series would be able to come up with suchfascinatingly logical consequences to the featured occurrences.But that was not all. The different stories of the movie were made sosimple and yet touching that its simplicity rightly balanced theoverall movie impression and perfectly complemented the alreadycomplicated scientific events featured therein. Perhaps movies ormini-series should use similar complications matched with simplestories to make it as appealing as this movie.Be that as it may, Impact did not only highlight the impact of theso-called remnant of a dead star on the moon and the impact of thedisturbed moon on the earth, requiring urgent action. More than that,it highlighted the impact of the overall happening on the lives of thedifferent groups of people in the movie and on humanity as a whole. Ittells of how a couple of kids who just recently lost their Mom copewith the loss of their remaining guardian, their grandfather and howthey face the impending loss of their father to save others. It alsotells of a very strong and understanding fiancée, who, despite theuncertainty of coming back alive, let go of her husband-to-be becauseshe believed in him and his far-greater mission. Above all, it tells oftwo men, who upon being chosen to go to a one-way trip to accomplish anoble assignment, willingly let go of their respective attachments onthis world, made sacrifices, and bravely faced dangers and even deathfor the sake of humanity.It's just fair for me to say that Impact could very well make an impacton the individual audience. And if you have not watched it, I wouldhighly recommend it.
27 April 2012
Absolutely HORRENDOUS!!!
`Impact' was a 2008 ABC television mini-series that I bought on a lark. Ready for the rant? Here comes... Talk about a suspension of disbelief! This made for TV movie was worse than `Santa Claus Conquers the Martians'! My IQ dropped so low I could speak to my plants as an equal in just the three and a half hours I sat in a semi-vegetative state watching it! A `heavy asteroid', described as a remnant of a Brown Dwarf, which was then incorrectly described as a remnant of a supernova, strikes the Moon causing a large crack along it's northeastern hemisphere. But! Because this "brown dwarf" remnant (I think they meant a neutron star, but I doubt anyone bothered to consult the science advisor. If they even had one) is made up of superdense matter, it's gravitational pull begins to draw it on a collision course with the earth. The marginal special effects stopped being so special after not even a nod to reality was given. The sight of cars being lifted into the air by the gravitational force of the now much more massive moon while the surrounding objects sat motionless took my breath away with it's total lack of respect for the audience. Wooden acting, absolutely unbelievable subplots, and an absurd sense of seriousness made this an intensely painful television experience. One must wonder if Phil Plait has seen this film, and if so, why hasn't he reviewed it? I suspect either because he's still in a coma, or he's unable to stop laughing long enough to type. Compared to this flick, Plan 9 From Outer Space should have swept the 1959 Oscars! Good GAWD, this film was awful!
Hans Bezemer 26 April 2012
Decent enough
Sure, this is not going to be my "all time favorite", but giving it a"below average" grade would be unjust. Agreed, at first there doesn'tseem to be much in favor of this movie: cosmic accident, increasingtroubles on the earth (which gives the visual effects guys a job), lotsof personal stories (which gives the actors a job) and finally amission with some unknown sci-fi technology to fix the problem. Haven'twe heard that before? It seems like all these script writers use thesame template! But there's nothing against that in itself. Some of the best classicsci-fi movies use a template like that and we LOVE it!What speaks for this movie is that the visual effects are quite good -especially for a TV-series - and the theme itself is original andcompelling, although the writers make it quite difficult for themselvesto find a way out and come to the obligatory happy end.The pace is acceptable and although I understand all these personalstories are there to make it interesting for the girls, I could do withfewer. But you might say the same about "Deep impact" for example. Andthe pace of Armageddon is not something I want to experience again: youjust have to slow down every once in a while. But I'd like to see agood fan edit on this one.All in all, I found it pretty entertaining. And isn't that what a movieis supposed to do in the first place?
25 April 2012
Very enjoyable 3 hour ride
This review is from: Impact (DVD) Enjoyed it, Elliott and Henstridge were quite good in this mini series. Far superior to "Meteor" which was released at the same time on both TV and DVD. "Impact" was a disaster type flick with character drama second. "Meteor" was more of a drama, with the disaster secondary. Would definatly watch "Impact" again, unlike "Meteor".
25 April 2012
Bad Plot, Worse Science
Although I wanted to keep an open mind, I write this with a bias against made-for-primetime miniseries based on disaster scenarios. First of all, the plots often have too many protagonists with cookie cutter personalities. The TV producers usually focus attention on a love story, a parent trying to rescue his or her offspring, some kids who have to watch a grandparent die, and of course, the U.S. President is the one person people turn to for morale. They also feature one or more good-looking scientists with no personal lives whose only motivation is altruism for the human race. Impact is all this, and worse. The sole antagonist, other than the rogue Moon, is a paranoid gas station manager who insists on protecting his own property in a world that is destined to end in 37 days - and withholding Aspirin from an old person dying of a heart attack.Where is the religious community in all this? Where is the theological wrestling that would naturally occur in a deeply religious country like the United States of America? Where are the highway robbers, the criminal element that usually appears during any major humanitarian crisis? In a real end of the world crisis there would be total anarchy. No one would be falling in love or changing their religious beliefs. Thirty-seven days is hardly enough for the average person to reflect on the death of a loved one.Not only that, but the average TV producer's understanding of physics is deplorable. The writers of "Impact" do no better than the people who served us "Armageddon" or "Asteroid". I count all the following mistakes:1.The object that strikes the Moon, given its appearance and description as a "dead star" would properly be referred to as a black dwarf. But there are no black dwarves in the Universe. Why? Stars are big and hot, and they take a long time to cool even after they run out of fuel.2.White dwarves emit enough radiation to have destroyed all life on earth long before the Moon got struck. They are also about the size of Earth.3.Ignoring that fact, an object massive enough to have twice the gravity of the Earth impacting the Moon at normal collision speed for objects falling toward the Sun at 1 AU would not crack the Moon upon impact. It would have cracked the Moon before impact due to tidal forces. Then the Moon would have been pulverized, and the white dwarf would have continued on its original trajectory.4.Ignoring that fact, the object would not settle into Earth orbit. If the Earth and the white dwarf became gravitationally locked the Earth would orbit it, not the other way around.5.Ignoring that fact, the collision trajectory would not be a perfect spiral.6.Ignoring that fact, all of the nuclear weapons in the world would not move the Moon a millimeter away from Earth. The military has scientists. They know this. Also, the Partial Test Ban Treaty prohibits the use of nuclear weapons in space.7.Ignoring that fact, the "gravitational anomalies" caused by the white dwarf would not affect certain objects and not others. If it was close enough to lift people off the surface of the Earth, it is likely the surface of the Earth would be lifted with them. In other words, the Earth itself would have been pulled apart by tidal forces.8.Ignoring that fact, no rocket exists that can launch humans and scientific equipment from Earth and land on a body with twice the Earth's gravity.9.Ignoring that fact, there is no such thing as a mass driver.10.Ignoring that fact, a mass driver would not propel the white dwarf into space. It would simply propel itself toward the white dwarf. The Moon's crust is not sturdy enough to withstand the forces required to support an object when that object is causing a body with twice the Earth's gravity to accelerate in its direction.11.Ignoring that, the energy required to mass drive the white dwarf out into space at a velocity high enough to gravitationally separate it from the Earth-Moon system would vaporize the mass driver within a microsecond of it being turned on.All of this suggests that the directors funneled money into the special effects team and away from their scientific advisers. Even more likely, they failed to hire such a team, because they knew that the realistic disaster scenarios had already been taken up. So they basically shrank the asteroid from Armageddon, gave it a hundred times the mass, threw it at the Moon and spat on Sir Issac Newton's grave. They then added a storyline that any half-brained soap opera producer would have rejected and called it a miniseries.A better plot would have involved a small select group of individuals leaving the Earth to live on a space station orbiting the Sun or another star. Explore their thoughts on leaving their home planet, their thoughts about humanity after earth, and leave it at that. At least the ending would be unpredictable.In conclusion, the dumbing down of the US American populace, like, continues.
19 April 2012
SOAP OPERA OR SCIENCE FICTION MOVIE
Movie had a good plot, but, to much dialogue that drag on and on, and I got tired of the romantic scenes soap opera effect. They should have spent more time on special effects and less on all the dialogue and daytime soap opera junk. Would have been alot better film. I thought I was watching "DAYS OF OUR LIVES" made into a SCI FI movie.
Exploited 18 April 2012
Complete crap!
There is absolutely no scientific coherency in this mini-series. A moonthat is the same mass as the Earth will make the Earth and the Moonrevolve around each other for instance. Also, a "moonlander" won't beable to lift-off from such a moon, let alone 'fly'.This series would have benefited from some form of humor, but it lackseven the basic necessities for that. There is nothing worth laughingabout here."Impact" is for lovers of very 'basic' SciFi or those who like crudedisaster-movies. Anyone who has interest in physics or astronomy shouldavoid watching this complete 'disaster' of a series.
13 April 2012
Overall Good Movie
In spite of all the criticism, I liked this movie. It's long, but divided into two parts. Characters are interesting and action keeps moving from character to character, place to place - with a bit of sci-fi, tragedy, love, triumph - all rolled together. Some of the effects are a bit silly, but overall, don't get critical and you'll enjoy it for what it is - a movie. You can keep guessing how it will finish, but can never be sure until the end. Bring out the tissues if you're soft hearted.
innocuous 13 April 2012
As much as I hate to say it, this was fun (sort of) to watch.
Yeah, I kind of got a kick out of it, but not for the reasons thefilm-makers intended. This is one of the few disaster movies that makes"Armaggeddon" look like it was written by geniuses and "The Core" likeit was made as an instructional film for use in college geologycourses. The wide liberties taken with actual fact (and common sense)make for a rollicking time, but it scares me that we're failing ineducating the youth of today.I mean, this is only 3 hours long, but in that time you learn that thescreenwriters (1) think that the moon has a magnetic field emanatingfrom a core, (2) believe that the "laws of gravity" are that "littleobjects are attracted to big objects," (3) don't know that cruisemissiles are air-breathers and won't operate or even steer in theabsence of an atmosphere, (4) don't understand the difference betweenelectromagnetics and gravity, (5) think that it takes longer to walkback to town from a car breakdown than to program, launch, and deliver87 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 kidsafterwards to make sure that (a) your son didn't spend the entire moviefollowing Natsha Henstridge's boobs, and (b) that your daughterunderstands that the science end of it was all BS so she won't beafraid to get her graduate degree in physics. After all, any exposureto the "scientists" in this film is an almost guaranteed turn-off forbudding researchers.
10 April 2012
Very interesting, plausable, good effects so far
OK. Here it goes. I just watched this movie. I rented it at Blockbuster because number one it was in English and not one of those horrible Spanish version remakes. The second thing I look at is plausibility. Where did they get their idea -- what science fad are they using for this movie? In this case they are targeting anti gravity science enthusiast, disaster movie lovers and, brown atar theorists and end of time buffs. Of course they add in religion to make things more interesting. The acting in this tear jerker was excellent, especially the Al Gore look alike president and all the other characters -- homeland security, pentagon representative, and loving kids. Women were of course the ones in the know and men typical idiots. The sets however were not well done -- typical of disaster movies. What would actually happen if an asteroid of this magnitude hit the ocean would result in massive tidal waves which would by themselves wipe out all life on land. I had to wonder how anything electric could still function after being burned out by the electric storm. Even as a rebel scientist I could not figure out where they dug up this gravity theory. I guess they needed it to make the soap opera portion of the movie work out. Ronald Reagan Star wars program followers and the Al Gore save-the-planet flock should love this movie.
decrobyron 10 April 2012
Oh. Cannot be worse.
First of all, I need the -10 for 10 for Vote.Just watched this on ABC. TOTAL WASTE OF THE TIME!!!1. Going to the moon/falling star - total copy of Deep Impact. Plot is quite similar. Going to the falling star. Plant the bomb.somebody dies, somebody comes back. All the countries help each other.Yes, we've been that.2. Science... common, what are you thinking?The missile flying with fin in no air space. Just one nozzle. Hah!The landing module with only one nozzle. Great. Director gotta watchsome space science documentary. Gravity and Electromagnetic(EM) power. Sure... As Electronics Majorstudent, I gotta laugh or cry.EM with bright blue light? Great Effect. Sure...3. Plot? there is no such thing.Sometimes too fast, fast, too slow or, slow. Horrible acting, too.Granny and Kids scene was not needed at all. 4. HORRIBLE Computer Graphics.Floting ship looks like 90's game CG. It would be cool at least AtlantaOlympic Game. Common, there is Star Trek and Transformer 2. Are youkidding me? Looked like the Co-ed graduation work. Actually Everythinglooked like the Co-ed work with some budget.5. There is no excuse.I know it is TV movie. So, I didn't expect much. If it was on the MovieTheater and I had to pay, I'd torch the theater. and sending the threatletter to the IMDb to change the vote margin to -30 ~ 10. And, stillshouting that there is no -100.6. Finally...Somebody give my time back. Is God punishing me by didn't go the churchnight service?
06 April 2012
Not so great
This review is from: Impact (DVD) After watching this movie, I must admit, I wish I had missed this movie.The movie was broken up into two parts. The first part seemed to drag on. Very very slow.I did the Amazon Unbox for this movie, and the video quality of the first part wasn't so great. What irritated was that the video quality of the second part seemed SIGNIFICANTLY better than the first, and immediately. When I say immediately, I do mean the first few seconds of the second part. I think the second part might have been filmed with better/newer cameras than the first. The video quality of the second part stayed good until the end. Why would the video quality of the second part be so much better than the video quality of first part?The second part of the movie was just too fast - there seemed to be a lot that could have been added, not that it would have made the movie any better.I am not a scientist, but I do have a good education, yet I found the "science" behind this movie to be extremely flawed.I am of the opinion that the writers of the movie were more interested in developing the characters than the science. The characters were definitely closer to reality than the science, but that isn't saying much. The only character that came close to being "real" is the dude who drove the kids to see their dad. He came very close to abandoning them, yet decided to help them anyways. This character was the exception to the rule, as most people would have left the kids to fend for themselves.At three hours and ten minutes, this movie was painfully long. I have seen and watched movies of this length before, and found most of them entertaining. This movie was horrible. At the point when the "first part" of the movie was over, I really wasn't overly interested in watching the rest. However, I did anyways, thinking the movie might end strong. I was disappointed.The only reason I gave the movie two stars is because the UnBox version is significantly cheaper than buying the DVD. If you really do decide to watch this movie, UnBox it. Don't spend the extra money on the DVD - it isn't worth the extra money.
euroman71 06 April 2012
Same old disaster movie
I was flipping channels last night and accidentally ran into thismovie. It sounded interesting. I only saw the recap of the first partwhich apparently ran previous weekend (so glad I didn't waste time onthat one) and the conclusion looked promising. But, as I startedwatching it, I quickly realized it was the same kind of movie we'veseen before. It's like watching an Armaggedon and Deep Impact puttogether only with bad graphics and 100% predictable outcome. Why nothave some originality.While I get love science fiction films, this film didn't really standout. The entire plot can be summed up in one paragraph: Meteor collideswith the moon, puts it off orbit on a collision course with earth. Somesmart scientists go up to the moon, plant a missile on the surface ofthe moon and save the earth. Awesome! Who came up with this? And, ofcourse, there is some drama, a pregnant woman, kids with dyinggrandfather, some special effects from the early 90s involvingcollisions and train wrecks. I mean, c'mon.As a disaster movie, this one certainly didn't connect with me. Ireally didn't care if anyone died or not, if moon collided with earthor not. Armaggedon was much better in terms of graphics, story line,and characters. Deep Impact was also better, I felt for the maincharacters.
31 March 2012
Good Characters and Story, Very Bad Science
This review is from: Impact (Amazon Instant Video) There are two sides to this movie.Its your standard disaster movie, but on a lower budget. The storyline and characters were pretty good and there are only a few small areas where the dialogue tends to drag on a bit. Even the lower budget special effects were mostly good. This whole side of the movie was definitely worth watching.On the other side is the science. People that really don't know anything about astronomy, physics, or how all of this works will be more likely to find this movie very enjoyable, but the rest of us are far more likely to cringe at the way science became fantasy in this movie. Up to a point all of us can suspend our disbelief and look beyond the flawed science, but its too hard to ignore the impossibility of the situation as I was watching this play out.This is a average movie, good on one side, but with science about as real as dragons and elves which will ruin it for many.
andymcguckin 30 March 2012
Brown Dwarf - Ha Ha
This film from the point of view of family relationships is quite good,but it completely fails once it enters the realm of science, and is noteven good 'Science Fiction.' The fragment that hits the moon is reputed to be from a brown dwarf,brown dwarfs are astrophysical objects that are intermediate entitiesbetween planets and stars. Stars like the sun are not immensely dense,in fact the density of our sun is comparable to that of water and'brown dwarfs' are of the order of .1 of a solar mass so the film asusual for Hollywood and TV is based on a failed premise. I think theymeant to use a fragment of a 'Neutron Star,' as this would have fitwith the effects described and even the goofs section is inaccurateabout the suggested effects of an impact with the moon of a brown dwarffragment. The author probably read about brown dwarfs being the size ofJupiter with a mass of between 20-50 times that of Jupiter and assumedthat they were superdense objects. Brown dwarfs are failed stars/sunsand if they were broken up they would diminish due to molecularreactions because gravity would no longer keep the fragments togetherand they would most probably combine with other molecules and elementsto form conglomerate meteor/asteroids that would not be very dense atall. It is because they do not have sufficient mass to become starsthat they become brown dwarfs in the first place. There are times whenI wish that Hollywood or the TV commissioning editors would at leastcheck that the science is at least plausible before allowing projectsto go forward.I know that science has been dumbed down, but this is going too far! Soalthough this films scores on how relationships cope with extraordinarysituations, it fails as a premise in my opinion and anyone with abetter than high school education will realise that, but in the US andin the UK most people don't have a clue about science, and neither dofilm makers apparently.Andy
MartianOctocretr5 27 March 2012
Guilty pleasure
Scientific inaccuracies abound as the moon gets shell-shocked by(ready?) a brown dwarf, making it heavier than the Earth, and causingfreakish electro magnetitism, weird gravity, etc.A guilty pleasure, for sure: I love these "the end of the worldthreatens" flicks where a bunch of scientists try to save us all fromannihilation. It's definitely put your brain on hold stuff, but it'sfar superior to that "reality" rubbish and most of the other stuff onnetwork TV. This flick "borrowed" elements from Armageddon and othermovies, 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. Characterswere clearly developed, and could be identified with. I actually feltsorry for the one that suffered from a debilitating phobia. Thedirector did the most possible with the plot-hole-ridden story, andsome of the weird stuff that happens is even fun to watch.Cinematic fast food that's amusing, and doesn't cost a lot.
thirdimpact1 27 March 2012
Check your expectations
That's the best thing you can do. It's a made for TV movie, and believeme it doesn't transcend that stature, nor does it really try to. Onceyou get it through your head that it won't have the production valuesof a Michael Bay movie or the big name stars, it's actually alright forwhat it is. It's a globe spanning disaster movie with a pretty coolpremise - 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 ornot) 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 towatch, you can do much, much worse. Yes, the acting can be, well, badat times, but for the most part it's serviceable. After all, you justneed the characters to act shocked and sad at the news and events soyes, they do that well enough.If I had to pay to see something like this, yeah I'd be upset. But it'sfree and with the summer TV season in pretty bad shape it's a nice wayto blow off four hours. It's completely inoffensive and that's leaguesbetter than most made for TV movies.