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!)

The last review I did was for 'Tornado Valley', the summary title I put for that was 'But...but...tornadoes do not work that way!', and as you can see from the summary title for this review, this is now the second, wait, third film I have seen where the makers of the film have broken the laws of reality.First problem, whether it was a dwarf star or something else that doesn't make sense, it still has to be one big freaking meteor to knock the MOON out of orbit.By the way, that's the plot, the moon gets knocked out of orbit and is on a collision course with Earth. That hasn't been done before ("Cough! Armageddon! Cough! Deep Impact!...wait, those were meteors, this is a moon...). Okay, let's face it, it's a brilliant idea, one that certainly got my interest. SO WHY RUIN IT?! You know it's gonna suck when night falls all around the globe!So guess what the (first) stereotypical military American solution to saving the planet is? Blow it up with pretty much every nuclear missile the US has. Which the people of Earth can see, somehow, through space. Because it worked so well in 'Independence Day', 'The Crazies 2010', 'The Return of the Living Dead', 'Mars Attacks', 'The Last War', 'Atomic Train',.... Also, it's a moon! It controls our oceans, destroying it will screw with the planet. And you're gonna need a lot more missiles than the film portrayed to blow it up. Which was true. The inevitable failure occurred. And whilst the scientists were looking at the effects, I was saying "You've angered off the moon and it's coming at you faster,". I cried when this actually proved to be the case! The moon "has increased velocity,"! HOW IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE?!Then we have THAT floating scene. The scene which starts off with a container ship and its contents floating upwards before moving onto cars. Now I did yell 'WHAT?!' at the screen. I'm not an expert on the moon or magnetism, but I do remember vaguely something about the magnetic field the moon has, so okay that may explain...bales of hay are now floating up...is this now gravity? Then why aren't the sea levels rising? That's what the moon controls.After the floating scene ends...for no apparent reason, we follow a grandpa (James Cromwell...why the Hell were you in this? You should be doing better!) and two kids (Don't know their character/real names, don't care), who spot a café. The kids run off and grandpa says "Careful now,", I say "Be careful running around the burning wreckage,". So the kids go into the café, see some water, start drinking it and the owner tries to kick them out for it. Grandpa comes in and beats him with a stick. Yes. The café owner is in the wrong. Not the two kids who were stealing precious supplies. Sure, there was a lot of water, but the point remains!I could go on about the stupid scenes but I need to get on. Clichés. You can probably do a drinking game on the number of clichés in this. Heartfelt message from the president, obvious romance, and the American solution of blowing stuff up included.The special effects are quite good for a television movie series. The acting however is quite good, at least the actors and actresses sure do redeem the film slightly. It's just the common problem for films you generally see on SyFy...DIALOGUE AND SCENES! The scenes I have already gone over, and a great example of dialogue is Grandpa telling the café owner to let go of the kids, two seconds later hitting the café owner with his stick, despite the next shot showing the kids behind Grandpa, indicating that the café owner wasn't even holding the kids when Grandpa told him to let go.Right, I'm wrapping it up. This film(s) makes no sense, and the scenes and clichés will drive you nuts. Watch at your own peril.

Yeah, I kind of got a kick out of it, but not for the reasons the film-makers intended. This is one of the few disaster movies that makes "Armaggeddon" look like it was written by geniuses and "The Core" like it was made as an instructional film for use in college geology courses. The wide liberties taken with actual fact (and common sense) make for a rollicking time, but it scares me that we're failing in educating the youth of today.I mean, this is only 3 hours long, but in that time you learn that the screenwriters (1) think that the moon has a magnetic field emanating from a core, (2) believe that the "laws of gravity" are that "little objects are attracted to big objects," (3) don't know that cruise missiles are air-breathers and won't operate or even steer in the absence of an atmosphere, (4) don't understand the difference between electromagnetics and gravity, (5) think that it takes longer to walk back to town from a car breakdown than to program, launch, and deliver 87 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 kids afterwards to make sure that (a) your son didn't spend the entire movie following Natsha Henstridge's boobs, and (b) that your daughter understands that the science end of it was all BS so she won't be afraid to get her graduate degree in physics. After all, any exposure to the "scientists" in this film is an almost guaranteed turn-off for budding researchers.

Let's face it folks this is a low budget made for TV flick. I'm looking for entertainment and the premise of the moon hitting the earth is a spell-binding one.It's also Sci-Fi so it's fine to stretch the facts. I'm a professional writer and will admit I'm a bit surprised there wasn't more research on the "real physics." A few hours with a Cal-Tech Professor would have cleared that up, especially regarding Kepler's Law and the difference between magnetism & gravity. But really who cares! If you want to know astrophysics, take a course at your local community college!Anyway the movie is well paced and edited. Every scene advances the story line nicely. I didn't have time to pick apart details. CGI can be weak, but it gets the story told. Can you say the words, "LOW BUDGET." Despite "Impact's" fours hours the film never lost my attention. That's my definition of a "good, OK, film." I include the "sleepy factor" in rating pictures and I was wide awake for all 240 minutes.Remember the Walt Disney quote, "The Plausible Impossible?" Sure fits here.