As I've stated before, on my first review posted to this site (which regrettably was of an even cheesier Sci-Fi flick than this one) I can forgive major flaws in scientific believability. . .for the sake of the movie. . .First I'll name a couple of pluses, pluses that didn't exist in the first movie I saw of this "4 pack set" (Supernova) A plus was the acting wasn't terrible, despite what they had to work with, they didn't lose my interest, obviously inexperienced actors/actresses but not terrible. Also, the destruction of the Arch would be how I would expect it to fall--sorta. . .that's it for good. . .now some of the bad (as much as I can fit anyway) The writers on this one were awful, the presidential 'speech' sounded totally unprofessional, and like something no living president I know of would ever consider saying to the country. This thing that feeds of Electricity, from the get-go, I'm saying TURN OFF THE FREAKING POWER PEOPLE!!!! If that's what you think is feeding the black hole, turn off the power, and it can't feed anymore can it? With all the extras that were hired who did a convincing job on their shock and dismay, it's ashame no-one thought to turn off the juice.The Black Hole was very 2 dimensional, perhaps it's just me, but last I checked such a thing is not possible, it would be growing up and down as well, in all directions, and it wouldn't skip One Metropolitan Square because the Arch looks more fun to destroy right after the stadium.My biggest problem is at the end of the movie though. They get this electric thing to go to the truck by SHUTTING OFF POWER. . .so why is the truck driving through a St. Louis with stop lights, city buildings lit up, Xmas lights etc? But, not only did they forget that the power was out for this ending, they forgot the Arch is gone. . .you can see clearly when the truck is driving the red light on the top of the Arch, and because that red light focuses the attention of the eye, you see the whole Arch, in perfect condition, unscathed. . .Additionally none of the buildings near where this black hole is being hit by Mr Electric are damaged at all. . .they did a decent job in the movie maintaining the plot until the end and then it really fell apart.Again I applaud the actors for doing their best with the terrible script write here, the dialog was terrible--but that's not the actors fault. . This would have been a 4, but the ending killed it for me completely. You can't have the St. Louis Arch be destroyed and then magically reappear, and you can't have electricity eating thingamabob attached to a truck because it's the only thing with power when you've got Christmas Lights, and the rest of the city's lights on. . .fail

well,this movie was pretty bad.bad acting,bad story,mediocre special effects,and bad dialogue.the two main actors,Kristy Swanson and Judd Nelson seemed to be phoning in their performances just for a pay check.the supporting cast wasn't great either.the story was silly,and very slow.and i'm no physicist,but i'm guessing a lot of the science was inaccurate.in some movies,that doesn't matter to me.for example f the movie is exciting or has sympathetic characters,or a good storyline.this movie has none of those.i just could not get into this movie,and really just waited for it to end.the ending was abrupt and anti climatic,which isn't really surprising since the whole movie was anti climatic.for me,The Black Hole is a 3/10

We have no idea what a "Black Hole" would do if it suddenly developed on the surface of a planet. It could act like a block of sodium metal on the surface of water. Whatever you think a Black Hole is, in terms of physics, it is first of all a distortion in time and space and gravity. Whatever is at the center of it is not anything we consider to be matter. While there is a great deal of elaboration on the theory that fits the data, science is about experiment. We have not probed or experimented with a Black Hole.Here is a mind experiment for you. We know that as matter approaches the speed (or velocity) of light, its mass increases without limit. Imagine an object with a mass that was infinite.Gravity is directly proportionate to mass. So, an object with mass without limit would have gravity without limit. The reason a photon (light) is able to travel at light speed is because it has no mass.If there were any possibility of creating a Black Hole, likely it would be in a situation, like an accelerator, where a particle with mass is forced with great energy to accelerate toward that light velocity.Since that particle's mass is increasing with velocity, it would take exponentially more energy to accelerate it further. You would need energy without limit, therefore to accelerate a mass without limit to light velocity.So, the issue of how a Black Hole would interact with a planet's surface is a moot point. Likely if you turned the whole planet's mass into energy you could still not produce a Black Hole.In the movie the phenomena is characterized as a Black Hole mainly by the media man in a news chopper. It could be a distortion in space/time like a wormhole as well.When we are willing to suspend disbelief in a movie for faster than light travel, it seems trivial, to me, to get excited about what a Black Hole might do on suddenly appearing on the surface of the planet.

I was bad in Physics at school... I admit, I was really bad, and only reason I got "C" grade and not Failed, was because my own grandma was the teacher.BUT - even I was laughing at the scientific side of this nonsense.One must be REALLY, REALLY high, to watch this movie and believe anything in it.Beside the nonsense plot, everything else in this movie is bad. acting, scripting, effects... total waste of time.Before this movie, all I knew about Black Holes was that they exist somewhere out there, and they are bad things... now I know why they say so...