30 of 30 people found the following review helpful
on December 23, 2012
The thing about the old "B" movies is that they weren't intended to be and although the production values were a joke, that was half the reason they were fun. The stories and the acting were actually fairly good, if a bit over the top.
THIS movie on the other hand, is typical SY-FY channel fare. Notice I didn't say Sci-Fi channel, I said SY-FY.
If you're a science fiction fan with cable, you know what I'm talking about.
Every bad movie cliche you can think of is in it:
*The plucky college students with important information which nobody believes.
*The heroic couple who are divorced, with the hot wife working for a jerk at some government institute who says things like "Don't tell "X" Anything!" and "What is HE doing here?
*The spaceship in crisis routine, complete with panel that explode because the ship was shaken by atmospheric turbulence even though it's in space and injured/dead Captain who has facial injuries for reasons which are never adequately explained even though he was strapped into his chair the whole time, nothing actually hit him and he was sitting RIGHT NEXT to the uninjured co-pilot. Who of later dies for no apparent reason also.
*The fat, smirking security guard in the military looking uniform, complete with surly attitude and that circular fur surrounding his mouth that some idiots think looks cool when it REALLY makes your mouth look like a body orifice normally covered by pant.
And the physics of it?
Hey, I'm all for willing suspension of disbelief. I'm even willing to buy into the insane notion that our Sun magically turned into a magnetar for a brief instant and then reverted back. But when you continuously shower me with blatant and silly violations of the laws of physics that are so dumb even Bugs Bunny would roll his eyes, you're making my job as a viewer difficult to the point of impossible.
But don't worry...
The script may suck, but that acting sure is, er... wooden. And not a fine piece of rich Mahogany or polished Cherry... I'm talking about the kind of wood that you find in the back corner of the lumber department at Home Depot that you just KNOW they're letting the employees take home for the fireplace.
I paid $3.99 to rent this thing and if I had to do it over again for FREE, with God himself offering to tack the wasted time onto the back end of my life, I wouldn't bother.
20 of 23 people found the following review helpful
on December 13, 2012
By Jim Clark, publisher, Lee County Courier, Tupelo, Mississippi
Collision Earth will not win any awards for special effects.
I don't have enough scientific background to tell you if the film's premise is possible, but I rather doubt.
The sun becomes a magnetar for a brief period of time, long enough to throw the planet Mercury out of orbit, along with a space ship which is in its orbit and sends both on a collision course with earth. There are magnetars, which are neutron stars with extremely powerful magnetic fields, but I doubt the sun could become one.
There's some kind of radioactive malfuntion on the space ship, two crew members die and one survives, Victoria (Diane Farr). I always figured if you got hit with a bad massive dose of radiation that was it, but maybe females have a special gene. Just kidding, but anyway she survived.
She's married to James (Kirk Acevedo) who a scientist, who was fired from this research lab before he could get his Project 7 up and running. Project 7 is basically a force field -- the only thing that might save us from that out-of-control planet Mercury.
If you're still with me, you probably need to rent this movie. Two college students get in contact with Victoria with their homemade radio, despite the fact that all other communication is down.
So James, a screwy friend of his and these two college kids are in charge of saving the earth. Hey, I've spent two hours with worse movies. If you like SyFy Channel movies, you'll probably love this one. Remember the earth could end next week Dec. 21, 2012 but the odds of 2012 DA14, that big asteroids hitting earth is 1 in 100,000. I'm still planning 2013.
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful
The DVD costs a buck less than the Blu-ray.
The picture is EXCELLENT, and the sound exemplary.
There are no extras -- not even trailers/previews.
The story is a little contrived. Something or another about a Space Shuttle
that never runs out of fuel that has a mission to Mercury. If I remember my
highschool science -- I'm 63, now -- Mercury is the closest planet to our Sun.
It is so hot there, your underwear would melt if you were dumb enough to go there.
Well, this Space Shuttle, that never runs out of fuel, has the mission to "walk on
the planet." Don't think so.
Everybody just, unexplainably, drops dead on the Shuttle except this gal that is
married to this guy that got fired from some anti-asteroid killer program that was
dropped from the Defense budget -- get this -- after it was fully built in a high-
This genius [her HUSBAND] they fired is the Earth's only hope, aided by two nerd
college students with a "Universal" broadcast studio in a biefcase... that works
-- perfectly -- without any visible antennae from Earth to Mercury. Back and forth,
with NO delays at all.
So... Mercury flies out of orbit and becomes a... a.... I think it was called a Mega-
tar/Magnitar or something, which is a scholarly word for a Magnetized Planet.
Mercury is hurtling toward our planet, and -- again, unexplainably -- sucks up SOME
[but not all] metal things like lamp posts; cars; mailboxes; trashcans, and this and
that. Fine; but it also hurtles SOME of this stuff right back to Earth with occasional
small pieces of Mercury.
The special effects (SFX) are best when you watch the movie on a 40" screen -- I guess --
because the rendered automobiles often look like those $1.20 Matchbox cars... at least on
my 55" Bravia.
I e-n-j-o-y-e-d the short hour an' a half flick. It was exciting, and while I could find fault
with the film's logic and SFX; and do, I found it no worse than a schlocky film from the
'50s, '60s, or '70s...but, with much better SFX.
Mind you, the SFX is not the "seamless" quality of Avatar or Men In Black III. It IS a good
POPCORN, and BEER in the den movie... what the hell get the kids some SODA, too!
I've seen BETTER, and I'll see WORSE.
It was an acceptable SyFi Channel movie-of-the-month --- or whatever THEY call it in America.
I live in Germany, and buy all the SyFi Channel -- and Roger Corman-like --- produced films I
can get my hands on.
The movie won't get any Emmys or Oscars, but I say from my Sony Bravia: "Bravo!"
Make another one... how 'bout the Earth colliding with the Sun: "COLLISION SUN"(?)
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
on February 7, 2013
If your going to do science fiction, hire someone with at least a basic scientific education.
This movie not worth additional comment.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on January 13, 2013
Science Fiction typically creates an improbable scenario then uses some new invention to counteract it. In this film, the planet Mercury is knocked out of orbit and is headed toward earth. We have a device in space which uses a force field to repel objects, but alas due to budget cuts, it is not operational. It seems only James (Kirk Acevedo) can save the planet, but not the film.
The science was horrific and inconsistent. In a space ship they turn off the artificial gravity device (whatever that is) as things float around, yet after a disaster, they have gravity as the woman works to restore oxygen. She is not wearing an oxygen mask, while her fellow crewman next to her needs one. The special effects and science reminded me of another sci-fi disaster film, "Metal Storm."
If the planet Mercury was knocked out of orbit, this is not something our government could keep secret as any amateur astronomer knows. The whole world would almost instantly know about it. And why would a conspiracy theorist broadcast this on a pirate radio in the middle of no where, where no one will hear it rather than just post it on line? When was this screenplay written? 1950?
The film overestimates the power of magnetism over gravity, something Velikovsky did about 60 years ago. The magnetar which caused Mercury to become magnetic originates in neutron stars, which our sun is not. It also emits high levels of gamma radiation which would have fried all members of the spaceship, even with their radiation shields which would have been manufactured for proton radiation and not gamma.
Enough with the geek science stuff. It is PG so the kids might like it. Not any better than the free movies on SyFy. You've been warned.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on February 4, 2014
POTENTIAL TO BE A GREAT MOVIE ! GOOD STORY AND SOME GOOD ACTING BUT THE PRODUCTION IS LACKING, AND THE DIRECTION SEEMS TO BE FROM AN EIGHTH GRADE STUDENT. IT IS A SHAME WHEN SUCH A GOOD STORY GETS SUCH POOR TREATMENT, WHAT A WASTE...
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
on July 21, 2013
The acting is competent, but the writing is not. The script writers play extremely fast and loose with concepts like speed, distance, gravity, magnetism, and just about any of the other basic forces of the universe that supposedly underlie the plot of this picture. If you can successfully suppress any basic knowledge you might possess of general science or how to do simple arithmetic and just go with the flow, you may still be enjoy it.
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful
Save for when I was 5 years old and too young to know better, this film had to be an embarrassment to many of those involved. Please remember the following names: John Prince and Paul Ziller. They were the Producer and Director, respectively, of Collision Earth. I ask that you remember them because I think it is unlikely that you will ever see or hear their names again. Also please note that the names of the Producer and Director were flashed onto the screen for less than one second each during the opening credits but their names appear nowhere in the ending credits.
This was a rather low budget film, but the budget should have been much lower because they had enough money to spend on this film to make it even worse than it could have been. Instead of having no special FX, they spent money to produce the most improbable and stupid FX their budget could buy. Try magnetic fields from the sun filling the air on Earth with demolished cars falling to the ground at about 5 mph and when they hit the earth, they all land in the middle of a country road that the "star" of the film happens to be driving upon. Of course, none of the cars hit his vehicle but he manages to hit one of them. Later, while a soldier is holding a gun on our star, one of the magnetized cars falls directly upon the soldier. Or, how about a space craft resembling the space shuttle cruising through what appears to be an impossibly dense and unnavigable asteroid field near Mercury. OK, but the pilot of the "space shuttle" is the co-star and she is piloting her spacecraft at speeds close to 8 mph while screaming with her eyes closed. While she is responsible for many scrapes and fender benders inflicted upon her spacecraft, she never hits an asteroid one head on. Later we find out that the asteroid belt near Mercury was actually many rocks and boulders from Mercury that were somehow cast into space by the magnetic fields created by the Sun. It seems that the spontaneous appearance of magnetic fields causes damage by influencing metallic objects (and non-metallic objects when necessary) to move in any one of the three dimensions of our world, but that the movement and associated damage or harm is further influenced by the presence of bad guys because the objects have a tendency to fall upon them. There also a number of just plain old mistakes written into the script such as a character hanging up a phone or radio and driving away before the party with whom they were speaking can him them what number or frequency to use to call them back. In the next scene, he is calling them back at the unknown number. If that is not a mistake, why does the other party say "I'll give you the number" but never does? There are also a number of deaths from violent injuries during the film where the bodies of the deceased do not appear to have any wounds. The most mistakes were made by repeatedly ignoring physics in a film depending upon science for its plot. I could go on and on having watched the movie only once. Who knows how many more mistakes would be found by a person actually challenged to find mistakes, not by someone who is bored with this dismal example of filmmaking at its worst. I could not bring myself to watch it again.
It takes money to make a movie. I do not think there are many who would make a full-length film without a profit motive. I noticed in the ending credits some mention of "Canadian Tax Credits" of which I know nothing. Could it be that this film was subsidized somehow by the Canadian government? I do not know, but it might provide some rationale for making this film if someone were receiving tax benefits for doing so. Another possibility is that a wealthy individual might want to buy a film production in order to make a spouse a star who would not be able to do so without such assistance. I doubt that is the case but I suppose it is possible. My problem is that I cannot accept that anyone would make a film destined to be as bad as Collision Earth without some overriding objective. And why would anyone want to associate themselves with such a poor production? Lastly, why are their 7 out of nine reviewers who gave it a rating better than one star? There may be some whose sense of humor will allow them to laugh at this movie from beginning to end. Collision Earth could be easily rewritten to become a parody or satire, but as it stands there is no a humor to be found.
I have already spent more time than it is worth warning others how bad this film is. But by writing a short review, am I giving this film more attention than it deserves? Probably. I originally viewed the film looking for the possibility of some interesting new scientific theory explaining how some new disaster could threaten our existence. However, there was no such theory here, there wasn't even any science. It is just a big waste of time and money.
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful
on December 19, 2012
Plot was weak
Acting needed work
Dialogue lacked credibility
Poor special effects - Non HD may be better
Not as good as it could have been
8 of 11 people found the following review helpful
on December 28, 2012
The acting and the story are on the level of your typical made for tv movie. The special effects are almost laughable. Buy a book for your reader or some lotto tickets instead of renting this waste of time video.