Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

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!)

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.

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"!