Asteroid (TV Movie 1997) Poster

(1997 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
42 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Overkill and worst hair stylist ever almost ruin good film
drystyx30 January 2010
Vince Varia-the film's hair stylist. A name to forget. This is the person responsible for almost ruining a good film, because this was unquestionably the worst hair styling ever in any film. Most of us don't care that much about such trivialities, but when characters go through storms, floods, fires, and more, without so much as a hair out of place, it becomes too obvious not to notice even by the most casual observer.

The film had a lot of assets. It does indeed involve the usual asteroid attack upon Earth, so story and characters are essential to making it worthwhile.

And the story and characters do work. The actors are almost good enough to make us forget they don't have a hair out of place, but no one is that good, sorry.

We can accept the extras in the background wanting to look good for their small pay, so they won't be embarrassed. We can easily overlook that, and even expect it. But for main characters to do so in the forefront make this otherwise good film a farce.

In addition, there is way too much overkill. Okay, we have to serialize it some, and make disaster after disaster, threatening situation after threatening situation, and for a while it is well written, but eventually the writing goes way overboard, and we just stop caring. It is impossible to watch this in one sitting all the way through unless you are on drugs. It is just too ridiculous, and again a farce.

However, the performances are convincing, and overall it is well written. Someone just got carried away. Put a leash on that collar. This actually sounds better than it looks (obviously the fault of Varia, who no sane director will ever use again).
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not that bad
panterafw23 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I don't understand why so many reviews are so low. I am talking about the DVD release, so I don't know about the 4 hour version, but I find the movie entertaining. It is a made for TV movie, so it didn't have a big budget for anything. I thought the characters were believable and the acting was OK. Some of the dialog was a little wooden, but mostly the acting was good- not great, but good. There were lots of errors, but I was still able to suspend disbelief enough to enjoy it. I didn't notice any mountains in the Texas scenes. I agree that the kid was annoying, he was my least favorite character. I liked the first part of the movie before the asteroids hit better than the aftermath.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Excellent Training Film For An Asteroid Disaster
sataft-212 May 2000
From a scientific point of view this film is technically correct and quite realistic in almost every way. The acting is reasonably good, though I felt that the casting of Michael Biehn as the head of a major government disaster agency was a poor choice. He appeared far too young for such an important post and seemed to have an almost Teflon aversion to getting dirty-no matter what the situation. In fact, when he did get any dirt on himself, it appeared as though it had been carefully placed there by the make-up crew at his personal direction. On the other hand, Annabella Sciorra was quite convincing as the astrophysicist, as was veteran character actor Anthony Zerbe for the limited role he was allowed to play.

If there was any fault with this film it resided in it's the 120 minute made for television length. For in reality "Asteroid" is actually two films, and the last third could easily have been called - "Aftermath". A full 30 minutes could have been trimmed from the ending, in which they managed to pack in all the sentimentality and 'soap opera' theatrics that was, refreshingy, excluded from the first 60 or so minutes. Despite the overall quality of the production, I would not recommend it to those who prefer a lot of gratuitous violence, extreme heroics and unwarranted explosions (there is only one gun shot throughout the entire film). Those of the technical persuasion however,will find this film quite enjoyable:at least the first 60 minutes.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
US Aircraft LASER weapon defies all physical laws!
grisell7 January 2000
A real disappointment!

First, credibility approaches zero, as a trillion-ton rock, moving at 15 miles per second is stopped by the LASER beams of two small aircraft on earth. Has anyone read physics? It is as if a mosquito would stop an express train.

Meteorites rain on the same spot for hours, even though earth rotates.

Meteorites are seen entering earth's atmosphere several minutes before they hit ground. Are there parachutes attached to them?

In the two more well-known films on this subject, Armageddon and Deep Impact, the meteor is stopped by bombing it with thermonuclear devices - a completely sensible theory. I like Science Fiction, but 'Asteroids' isn't SciFi, the film violates every possible physical law, the creators treating the observers as imbecills.

Every building and vehicle in the film seems to be filled with gasoline - everything explodes (by the way - when will we see a film where cars and houses don't explode and diesel oil doesn´t catch fire?).

The second part of the film is an endless display of fires, roaming people and military vehicles. This would certainly put you to sleep were it not for the monotonous engine noise and fire sound.

And in every dramatic scene you are faced with the difficult and thrilling questions: "Will they find each other???", "Will the hero survive???".

I long for a meteor movie that blasts everything away, killing everyone including the hero.
37 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Booooring!!!
VicVega-231 August 1999
Down at the "Asteroid" studio: "Boy, oh boy, what shall we do, what shall we do? We have no ideas at all! Hey, why don`t we steal an idea from another movie but instead of copying it, we just take away the excitement, the good FX, the breathtaking action and, hey, who cares about good acting anyway?" I think that this monologue really has occurred, because it really describes how much this movie sucks. But the worst part about it was the length!!! Do NOT rent, buy or touch this movie!!!
14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
A disaster of a movie
noelcox26 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This is a disaster of a movie. Basically yet another asteroid/meteorite impact film, it departs from the formula in the behaviour of one of the leads, FEMA Director Jack Wallach.

*** spoiler ***

FEMA Director Jack Wallach abandons his responsibility to the public and launches on an entirely selfish private rescue mission. Let us hope that his character does not reflect that of the real people in similar positions. As it was, he should have been prosecuted for criminal dereliction of duty, or some such crime. I have some sympathies for his predicament - a family member is facing death - but he had a wider responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of people who were looking to him for their survival. Really, this single point destroyed what might have been a moderately successful film.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
By any standard, even amateur 16mm films, this one is stupid
Asteri-Atypical30 October 2001
This film has gained a certain infamy for stupidity. It's discussed as a laughing stock for the complete mutilation of science and even basic logic.

It's not a matter of a low budget. It's not that we are just being picky and expect it to be "too" accurate. I can accept a certain level of inaccuracy. This film goes way beyond that level into the absurd. It has about the scientific realism of spilling a bucket of water and having all the houses on the block carried away in the resulting flood.

There's no defending or rationalizing this level of stupidity. Even the "human drama" elements were mediocre at best and downright simplistic and boring for most of the film. The last half of the film dragged.

There's no reason a film should be made this poorly just because it's made for TV. It's not poor by comparison to other flicks or big budget movies; it's just poor. Even the good performances of some of the actors couldn't save this one.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not a bad movie than again I am a little biased.
magicfunnyman2 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I am a little embarrassed by the strong negative reviews of this movie because I worked in this movie as a background actor. I am also surprised by the fact that the movie was nominated for 4 awards and won an Emmy for Outstanding Special Visual Effects, yet all but a hand few of viewers on this web site agreed with the Academy of Arts and Sciences in their movie review.

Personally I enjoyed the movie. It wasn't the greatest movie I've seen but it certainly wasn't the worst. Of course when I first started watching the movie I was more interested in picking out my ugly mug out of the sea of faces. (you can actually see me standing just behind Anne Marie Johnson. We were watching a news vid at the Kansas City Evacuation site. (We were watching the actual news vid that was filmed earlier and later used in the movie, not a blank TV screen.)

One of my favorite scenes was when Fema worker Adam Marquez (played by Carlos Gomez) got shot, I thought it was very well done. I liked the actor who played the gunman, he did an excellent job! I actually worked in that scene as one of the extras in the crowd of upset evacuees. An interesting bit of trivia is that while we were doing that scene, one of the other extras in the crowd fell over and had convulsions. Someone called out for a "real" medic, then the man was carried out on a stretcher. (The man was alright and I believe he was there for the re-shoot the following evening.)

I also enjoyed the suspense created in the scene when Jack Wallach (played by Michael Biehl) saved the boy named Elliot off of a slab of concrete just before it crashes into the center of a crater formed by the Asteroid hit.

I am a little puzzled by those who think they saw mountains in the movie. The evacuation scenes were filmed at Buckley Air National Guard base several miles out east from Denver. (That's away from the mountains, for those of you geographically challenged.) It was far enough away to make it nearly impossible to see any mountains. Most of the other scenes that were filmed within the city limits were filmed at night making it difficult to see the mountains if they did happen to get in the shot. I have also watched the movie many times myself and have never seen any mountains in any of the scenes. (I guess I will have to watch it again to see of I can see them.)

Not a bad movie. Had I not worked in the movie it would be hard to say if I would have enjoyed it more or less. If you like a good disaster movies than I would recommend this one.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This is a Horror/comedy - not a disaster movie
bananas-34 February 2006
The hilarious horror is how many scientific facts you can get wrong in a single movie.

As a first time watch this movie is absolutely gut-wrenching because of the huge blunders in the plot and the scientific "facts". I really ought to have spared myself by shutting off the TV but I could not. I was in denial - refusing to believe that so many stupid errors that any high school student could have caught had actually made it into a movie.

So I kept watching in horror. Then actually, later on I watched this movie again because I still refused to believe what my eyes had seen. When I watched it the second time i realized that my eyes and ears had not betrayed me and I was rolling on the floor laughing through most of the film.

The stupidity in this movie, makes it the kind of movie that makes the rest of the world believe that Americans are ignorant, unintelligent and need to fix their public schools. Not that I believe this to bee true although the script-writer falls into this category.

This is unquestionably the most stupid movie I have ever watched, and probably also the worst. So I give it a clear 1 out of 10 since I can't use negative numbers.

Although I must admit that this movie has a potential for becoming a cult-movie in the horror or comedy genre.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I liked it have seen it three times now 2009 Earth day
elliott7821222 April 2009
While I won't give this a 10 it was a TV mini-series and as those go this one was pretty good. Now I understand other reviewers reservations and exclamations on this mini but it's a guilty pleasure how else could I have seen it so many times. I may just buy it on DVD. For a television production every aspect is average special effects, acting, script but from that same perspective for a SCI-FI DISASTER THRILLER ITS GREAT. I have seen worse don't make me name them. You have to be your own judge. Michael Beihn & Anabella Sciorra are decent in the film most of the other actors you have seen on various TV series or TV movies, Bradford May who directed is competent and has a long history of directing for b movies and a multitude of TV shows.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Well this was made in 1997...
lie_it8020 June 2009
This movie/TV Series? is really bad. The effects are terrible, really bad. The asteroid looks to "computer generated" (yes, we all know it is, but it looks really bad), the explosions we can see clearly the buildings are miniatures, like when the flood happens. The lasers used are just to freaking bad looking. Well, i didn't know this movie was made in 1997 so i guess it explains why the effects are terrible. But, there are so many movies in that date which effects are good like Independence Day. Now, other bad point: the actors. Most of them don't know how to act. Take for example the little kid: so ANNOYING. In the scene were his grandpa gets stuck he reacts normal and simply goes away to a point he wants a chocolate bar more them rescuing grandpa. His mother on the movie is also terrible. Her lines are to chezzy and she doesn't show emotions at all. In my point of view, if her son was killed she wouldn't react. For example, when her son is falling in the asteroid crater she goes saying "Hey. Hold on, OK?" I mean hes about to DIE for gods sake... Overall, its a bad movie. I give it 3/10 and not zero because some actors were good actually.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great Movie
countrygurl24646 May 2014
I personally have watched this movie seven times until my VCR tape broke. I loved it and would love to find it on DVD so I could watch it some more. I got real feeling for the actors in this movie. they seemed to react to situations like normal people might not the oh well whatever reaction that a lot of actors portray now days. I found the over all plot to be exciting without all the blood and gore that you see in a lot of films now.I hope anyone who watches it enjoys it as much as I have. You must remember that the newer special effects were not ready then and not judge it by that. Its special effects were great when it first came out.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Armageddon, Deep Impact??
rsantos25 July 2000
I have read other user's comments about this movie. They can't help but compare this with Armageddon or Deep Impact, without realizing that this film was made, more or less one year earlier than those other movies. Thus it's unfair and Asteroids should be judged without any reference to other films.

Personally, I think the actors didn't show unconvincing emotion and the overall production lacked imagination. The film was stretched out due to some insignificant development of some characters. Most parts can be fast forwarded and viewers still can afford to miss those parts. If this film is aired on TV, simply set the record on your VCR for 4 hours and view it later.. watch something else like unsolved mysteries or tune to discovery channel.. or a baseball game!
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Disappointing
ajnanou29 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this movie today and was hoping for something along the Armageddon line - okay, so this kind of movie tends to be predictable, but i think it's a guilty pleasure anyway. Boy was I disappointed. The story seemed to drag on and on - every time you think it's over, it's not (surprise surprise). You can almost see the producers' brains ticking to come up with some more plot to make up the allotted time. The premise is actually quite good, and believable, but the end result is poor. I felt no sympathy whatsoever for Elliot (the son), he was just an annoying brat to me. I also could not relate to the main characters - the firefighter's wife was pretty selfish, and the "romance" budding between Jack and Lilly has NO SPARKS whatsoever. Finally, is it really realistic to believe that after such a disaster, one woman would be able to get 1) a chopper 2) her own soldier and truck to go and look for her son and father when there's like ten thousand other people needing help? I think not. Waste of time, I didn't even stick around to watching the last five minutes.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Its a good story if the technicalities don't make you throw up first.
spacepup27 September 2000
Being an astrophysics major, the first hour of this movie made me want to throw-up over the inaccuracies. Every scene involving a telescope was inaccurate for any modern observatory. ( Telescopes have been guided by computers for some time now, especially at observatories that get funding as the one depicted.) It gets better after that. and if you don't know a lick of science then it wont bother you anyway. The plot is pretty cheesy at times. (I don't think the FEMA director would really jump onto a burning building.) But it is a good story about human drama. I think they did an o.k. job portraying how people would react in a situation like this.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Even for a TV movie, this is laughable
ianreds4 September 2006
One of the cheapist TV movies ever.

The plot is virtually nothing to do with an Asteroid - might as well be an episode of a soap opera thrown in with abit of thrown about debris of a small grenade going off in a kebab shop.

Script is appalling - lines like

If it's any comfort, your not alone -(yeah - supposedly - the crate is going to be around 100K)

the big asteroid has just hit - following comment from a news presenter - "a small impact in an apartment block in cologne" - do Americans know where Cologne is??

the fireman has to go back to work to help the incoming Asteroid - the wife says - "is it just about the job or the thrills"

2 big men huging - "We'll get through it buddy, we'll get through it"

the fireman's wife comes up from the basement after the major blast and her comments on seeing her place are: "o my god, get me a broom and rubbish bag" - I think ??

Continuity errors: - they get blasted by water from a broken dam on a bridge but next minute, the main male character was dry, clean clothes, etc, he looks peachy

  • when they come up from the basement after being torched, they all have breath that show that the site in is minus degrees One of the worst movies I have 2/3 watched - am writing this while the last 1/3 is playing.


to much to mention - this movie must have been made as a spoof
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Beyond description
tuikie18 May 2009
Well, this is actually bad beyond the telling of it.

One would think that, with ending series as Firefly, SciFi would take a good hard look at anything they would spend money on. But really, after watching only 15 or 20 minutes of it, it's kind of obvious that this is really, really BAD. The fact that there's actually businesses that have payed for (some) of this cr*pfest, is a shock.

I'm really glad that I don't usually nitpick on movies; the amount of factual errors and goofs is beyond belief.

This movie deserves its 1 (out of ten), and that's actually pretty generous.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
No plot, no characters, no reality, no nothing
blimdb27 December 2004
There is just nothing but people screaming and moving without purpose or direction. Plain silly, with lots of fire.

Apparently, I saw only the second half on TV. Lucky me. I could not really watch it continuously (kind of painful, even though I can swallow a lot of stuff when it comes to SciFi), so I watched a rather interesting documentary on dinosaurs at the same time. They had clearly more emotions than the characters in this film.

Just one question : if an asteroid breaks, what are the chances that two pieces will fall on the same spot. Close to zero. What are the chances more than two will ... Now, given that the planet rotates quite rapidly, what are the chances that several will fall on the same spot at different times. This is just one example of the utter technical nonsense of the thing (then ... what is to be expected with the kind of pseudo-science taught in too many schools). But the rest (acting, dialog, scenario, ...) is on the same level.

I would give it a 1, but I still give it a 2 on the odd chance that there might be something in the first part I did not see.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Moves along, but is forgettable
Vic_max26 February 2008
This made-for-TV movie was slightly better than average. The variety of locations, story lines, visual effects and characters were 'ok'. Nothing made the 2-part movie particularly suspenseful or interesting, but the constantly moving pace kept if from degenerating into boredom.

The movie is about two asteroids that are on a collision course for earth. A big problem is that there's not enough time to do very much to eliminate the threat. Part 1 of the movie deals with this situation. Part 2 deals with the negative aftermath of the what happens in the US.

As mentioned, the saving grace of this movie is that there's a lot of action, visual effects and scale. It's not quite enough to make it a good movie, but it keeps it afloat.

While this movie is innocent enough for any age group to watch, I don't really recommend seeing it because it's 4 hours (with commercials) of a forgettable story.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
scientifically accurate?
drunkguy20 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Someone reviewed this film as being "scientifically accurate", which I guess it is if the only science you know came from the Austin Powers trilogy. It's amazing to me that someone would think it was possible that they could blow up an asteroid with a "giant laser", and the pieces would all impact the exact same spot, despite the fact that the Earth ROTATES, and the explosion delayed the pieces somehow so that they fell to Earth days later than expected. As far as the acting, I wondered throughout the movie just how much Thorazine Annabelle Sciorra had ingested before sleepwalking through her scenes. Michael Biehn doesn't fare much better. He couldn't act as if his hair was wet when he just went through a massive wave that washed his truck off a bridge, yet left him and the guys in the bed of the truck dry and unscathed. This movie fails on every level. Everyone should sue the producers for those four hours back.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What?
ctomvelu16 July 2009
This may be the worst "sky is falling" flick I have ever seen. It is a blatant copy of any number of previous such disaster films, minus the excitement and drama and interest. Michael Biehn, not exactly the most exciting actor who ever lived, heads all non-star cast as the world prepares for collision with an asteroid. As goofy as Armageddon was, I'd watch that 100 times over this low-brow pablum. At least hambone lead Bruce Willis dies at the end. Heck, I'd even watch that 1974 "world is coming to an end" craptacular EARTHQUAKE with Charlton Heston and Ava Gardner 100 times over this. I just love it when the aged Heston and Gardner get all muddy.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
an underrated TV movie classic....
janalwy5 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
this movie is really epic in my opinion when i first seen this glory of a movie it was playing on the scifi channel and i think at that time i was into asteroids and meteors and comets so naturally this movie lured me in the first two minutes because of number one michael biehn his performance in this is awesome. second they switch back from dallas, Texas and Denver,Colorado which keeps up the interest of the movies location unlike some movies today and be aware i barely remember this movie exsept some part i vagualy remember and last but no least number 3 the idea of the movie sure it might not be original but it's a fun concept asteroids heading towards large towns with a huge population. in conclusion i don't know why everybody hates this movie it really is'int all that bad 9 stars out of 10 really awesome i recommended but some people really don't like this movie but i like so take another look at it.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The greatest pile of cack ever!
Conorooney9 March 2004
I have never saw a more pathetic movie. The acting was terrible. They womans child was the most annoying actor I have ever heard or seen. I could go on and on about complaining about him but I ain't like him. Also, the FX were cack. The big white writing saying where they are that takes up the bottom portion of the screen. Something like the x-files would have been a much better choice. I know it's really hard to mix water, a full scale prop with minatures because you can see the difference but if they used bigatures it would look so terrible. Badly shot. Not worth looking at. If ya want to see a good disaster movie see Armegeddon or however ya spell it. It was too much of a soap opear. It should have ended long long before it did after the asteroid struck not nearly 45 mins later.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
If they got their info right, it might HAVE been good
MovieFan98312 May 1999
Boy, did they have their info wrong in this movie. I live in Kansas City, MO, and first of all, we don't have a downtown that looks like that. Second we have no dam. Third, this is a stupid movie. Although it had mediocre FX, it was still a bad movie. 3 out of 10.
13 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This film stinks
Don-18510 April 2008
I worse film I ever saw. FEMA to the rescue maybe too many Naw Leans residents saw this film. FEMA by no means has any action heroes.

Everything about he film is bogus.

Emergency workers don't behave as shown Everyone would have known the asteroid would have splinted. Why did the grand father leave the house with 2 small fires going.

There was food and water at house.

Its a waste of time. Don't waste your time. Watching this film is a waste of time Clinton Hollywood feel good.

If you want to see a silly very silly 90's movie watch this and laugh.

Believe it or not the Kid is named Eliott.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed