goorobhamii Do not be fooled by those who rate this movie anything higher than 3/10. Either they have suffered like the rest of us watching this movie and only seek to draw others into their own personal hell, or they truly saw some redeeming quality in this movie and so are not to be trusted as they are a danger to themselves and others. As a fan of "bad" movies I can say that this one is a masterpiece. I will only summarize what other reviewers have so eloquently detailed in their reviews...terrible, terrible plot, acting, dialogue, characterization, locations, sets, special effects, production values, and bad, bad science. There are "good" bad movies and there are "bad" bad movies...this is the latter. You have been warned.

Gin-ster I realize that no Academy Awards are forthcoming for this movie, but I do have some positive things to say about it. True, it is one of those formulaic low-budget 2-part mini-series about the world-destroying disaster movies in which inevitable destruction somehow gets turned around instantaneously when scientists figure out what to do and there's an intrepid astronaut/fighter pilot/etc. there to implement the plan. So, no big surprises there. However, there are a couple of odd things about it: SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER ...First, the first 90 minutes are spent trying to rescue a bunch of civilian astronauts, all of who actually get killed. Second, SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER the thing in Afghanistan ended up WAY different than expected, with the heroine having to kill the girl she was trying to protect! SHEESH, I didn't see that coming. I figured that when the solar flare attack (or whatever the heck it was) hit the area the tribal chief would work with the relief workers, not attack them more - no heartwarming resolution there.Third - it was hard to tell what was up with the blond man stranded in his apartment, and it was rather formulaic that he found purpose in his empty life blah blah blah by rescuing a woman and her child. However, here was the unusual part - as he faced the end of the world he didn't get all sentimental about his parents (I had half expected him to start caring about them) - instead, he said up front what lousy parents they were. Finally, as far as oddities that made this movie different from the routine imminent-world-destruction pix - many have commented on the dumbness of the two male rivals arguing while a major crisis is looming. True, that is probably unrealistic - people would more likely have had their attention on the problem at hand. However, SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER - while I figured, early on, one of them would have to die, my money was on the astronaut - I figured that was what he was there for, i.e. someone who could pilot the device into the sun - so was surprised that the other guy (who seemed more suited to the woman the two were fighting over) died instead.Finally - several here have commented on how ridiculous and non-scientific the whole premise of the movie is, and I agree. There is no way that a thingy fired from a space craft could make the sun go bananas. Fine, from a scientific standpoint the whole thing is ridiculous to the nth degree. So, what's your point?:)

Joel Waite Rated at 3.3 you'd think that this is one step away from a movie made by high school kids. Actually it's pretty good. What the critics are harping about is the science and they may have a point. There are only two real science issues: 1) The unlikely case of the shuttle being able to get close enough to the sun to penetrate it. 2) The relatively itty-bitty tiny speck of their special drive unit being able to have any effect upon the sun.For the shuttle getting close; that' the one 'gimme' (suspension of disbelief) that all sci-fi asks for. If they'd used teleporters, nobody would have said anything.. They actually qualify this by stating that the drive unit - which is what goes into the sun - is designed to take tremendous heat.The ability for the drive unit to disrupt the sun is another 'gimme', but it is explained throughout the movie as a unit that harnesses solar radiation and multiplies it. So IF the unit survived the entry into the sun, THEN it would cause a chain reaction. Beyond those two points, your critical eye really shouldn't see too much to cut down this movie. The acting is rather good, although corny in a few places. This is certainly not a 7.0 movie but it deserves a lot more than a 3.3 rating. I'll give it a 6.4 - on the edge of a good quality movie, almost worthy of looking forward to seeing again.

wmhogg Based on the level of scientific understanding demonstrated, I would have expected this movie to be from the late 1940's. There was so much that was inconceivably bad in this movie that it is hard to know where to begin.Others have pointed out this is not a science fiction movie. It's just fiction without the science. However, imagine a vaunted space trip that is so momentous, it even includes the President's wife on-board the ship.Now, imagine that instead of NASA and Mission Control, you have a small meeting room in what could be a Ramada Inn with multiple laptop displays at the front of the room. On top of this, during the critical moments of the mission, the two guys in charge start pushing and shoving each other.When one of the main characters is making a call by cell-phone (I know!)to the spacecraft, telling them crucial information, the female lead bursts in and tells the guy to hang up repeatedly. Then she demands that he "let her in". Well, the message doesn't get delivered in time, with dire consequences.I could go on and on, but the scenes and acting are too pitiful to describe. I love bad movies, but this one disrespects its audience completely. I guess Julia Ormond owed someone a favor, or lost a bet.They didn't try very hard to make a good movie, and what's more they didn't care. The essence of a good "bad movie" is that they are really doing the best they can, and their efforts fall entertainingly short. This is not one of those films.