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.

BengoAbroad This would appear to be the 44th review. I'm amazed to find a few of the previous 43 actually LIKED the movie! Good science fiction usually at least has good science in it - not this film! Good films usually have good pacing - not this film! Entertaining movies usually have great editing and special effects - not this film! HOW DID IT E V E R win a 'Leo' special effects award??!? Some weren't bad, but hardly stunning. And I lost count of the scenes of mystified scientists staring at meaningless screens. IF A FILM MAKER CAN SECURE A $14,000,000 BUDGET, why not try making a GREAT $14,000,000 movie, instead of an utterly shoddy attempt at a $100,000,000 movie? Granted, this script would never have justified any more budget, but then - throw the script away and make something worth making! Oh well - I guess that's Hollywood (or where-ever it was made!)

chatbox1973 -This Review contains spoilers-That the "science" in this movie doesn't make any sense at all is not the biggest problem, it's a movie, although there are a lot of obvious blunders.The script however slowly drags itself forward, there is way too much irrelevant details in this movie.What irritated me the most about this movie were the grandfather and those annoying brads, sure just crowbar somebody to the ground when he tries to defend his supplies against thieves.The acting in general (apart from those kids) wasn't all that bad. Natasha Henstridge is always a pleasure to watch.I rate it a 3 out of 10

mgdacap Though there weren't elements the same as the hit 1998 Michael Bay film, Armageddon, there were some elements VERY similar. The story plot, that the moon was hit by an asteroid many times the size of the one that killed off the dinosaurs, was actually pretty good, CG could've been a little better, but not everyone is Michael Bay. The part I did not like the most is the part on the moon, to me it wasn't suspenseful, and I don't like the fact that they pretty much split the moon in half. Kind of like in Armageddon. Other than those it was OK. Probably a 3 out of 5. But if you are an Armageddon fan like me, don't watch this movie.