HS Rivney At first it seemed like a good plot but as it grew deeper it became more incredulous. People walking on the edge of craters and touching rocks in the center - sorry, the heat and radiation would kill you before you got close enough to see it.The brown dwarf - NOT. A brown dwarf http://bit.ly/2gXA6P6 is not a dead star. It's a wanna-be star that isn't big enough, like an extra big Jupiter. There's a lot of technobabble but I suppose most non- science people would just be swept in the smoke screen.The DIALOGUE is wholly unrealistic. I feel badly for the actors that had to say those lines. The females had the worst dialogue. No one ever says things like "large enough to destroy a large metropolitan city". You say big enough to blow up New York!"The backstory was forced onto the viewers so quickly it made my head spin. Again, it was a worse situation for the females than the males. We know that our heroine just started her job only 6 months earlier and is now getting a 'bonanza' (a meteor shower). Not only was it irrelevant, completely irrelevant, it was forced and phony.Character names were poorly chosen. Not going into that. ON THE OTHER HAND, the acting was pretty good given what they had to work with. This has all the characteristics of a made-for-TV movie drama; don't expect 2001: ASO.I'm a science fiction writer and I go to great lengths to back up my technobabble with science, not fiction. If you just want something to watch, DJE is always worth tuning in for, but if you are hard core SciFi, you're going to find all kinds of things to complain about. I've seen worse (and better).

bowmanblue Impact is basically a 'disaster movie' but on television (Think 'a Michael Bay film, but without the budget or stars). An asteroid has only gone and knocked the moon out of orbit and now our former lunar buddy is on a collision course for Earth, dooming the lot of us.But don't worry, seeing as Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck were unavailable to fly up there and blow it out of the stars, we have a team of international boffins who will come up with something to save us all. In the end they simply must have watched Armageddon, as they decide to fly up there and blow it up (just with worse special effects).Most people could probably put aside the slightly dubious special effects and lack of big-name actors and give Impact a chance. However, its main problem is simply its lack of originality. Even if you do leave out the dodgy scientific theories behind the scenario, what you have here is one disaster movie cliché after another. The dialogue is horrendous and even when the action does pick up a bit and focus on the (slightly) more interesting characters, it keeps hopping back to some severely boring ones (aka their various families, who all happen to have put themselves in perilous danger at the same time).I was never that much of a fan of Armageddon. I found it too over-the-top and daft to really enjoy properly. However, after watching Impact, give me Steve Tyler's 'I Don't Want to Miss a Thing' any day.

Menno OK so there are some problems with this movie I'll give you that but still I want to focus on the positives. I give it a 6 out of 10 for those.1 The acting is okay. For those who don't agree: We had a politician here who made a campaign film, now that was bad acting! 2 It's internationally oriented. For once it is not just the United States who is affected and who magically saves the world. Actually the Europeans and Russians play their part.3 Even if it is just for a brief moment the Germans and French talked German and French. For the rest of the movie regional accents are heard. Not the whole world speaks American English.4 It was enjoyable to watch if you don't focus to much on the negatives.The trouble I had with it are the following: 1 It's scientific basis is as good as a 1950's movie there are a lot of things that don't add up. It's fine for a movie back then but now moviegoers know more and are therefor more demanding on this point. They should have taken a little more care in getting the basics right, even if the higher science doesn't add up.2 that the US would decide on this without consulting it's international partners (I believe that China, Russia, the EU and others would want a say in that and all hell would break loose if they didn't get a say) this would be the spoilerisch bit, even if I believe anyone would see this coming. 3 that the US president would be stupid enough to prefer the option of the army over the option presented by a large international team of scientists (who are in consensus for once). Especially when the option by the military is considered as counterproductive for years by scientists and administrators for years.

drhugh Arthur C. Clark did the film world a great disservice when he made the memorable comment that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)Film producers NOW think that SCIENCE = MAGIC. Really, folks, if any illiterate can make a science-fiction movie, why do universities BOTHER giving film degrees? There was a highly-readable article in the April 2009 Scientific American describing what is a "brown dwarf". A white dwarf, a superdense left-over from the life-cycle of a star like our sun, cools down to a BLACK dwarf, and certainly that would screw up the orbit of the moon and make a nasty hole. Perhaps the censor board wouldn't let them use the term "black dwarf" with the word "penetrate"...Fiction or no, it is simply wrong to mislead the public, poor ignorant sods that they are, about something any fool could learn on Wikipedia. Not that anyone would look it up, since the movies tell us everything we need to know. And if anything doesn't make sense, or if Spartacus is wearing a Rolex, then "Wizards did it"!