A Brilliant Conflict

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Because its a made for TV movie on a much smaller budget than the usual Hollywood fare I always try to look for the small positives than pick out the disappointing negatives...but this was a difficult one to judge.The plot is pretty thin and most definitely not based on any science or engineering that comes close to real world truths. At best it can be described as 'fanciful', though its often closer to ludicrous as Mercury somehow gets forced out its orbit on a collision course with earth - a variation on the old asteroid theme I suppose so nice to think the writers at least tried even if the final result was less than perfect. What didn't ring so well was the old cliché of the disgraced/renegade scientist being the anti-hero of the plot. Even the squeezing in of his Astronaut wife who by pure coincidence is on a spaceship journeying to the doomed Mercury isn't enough to distract from this oldest and most annoying of SyFy/Disaster characters.Talking of the actors its a fair lineup of B/TV-stars but even this isn't enough to save them from over/underacting and the terrible screenplay and script. As the primary lead Kirk Acevedo ensures that the term Wooden Expression will continue in acting circles, whilst Dianne Farr as his Astronaut wife is entirely wasted in ridiculous space drama segments.After the space drama the more earth based effects of the floating/falling cars are absolutely laughable and definitely second rate CGI, especially when it appears nothing else is magnetic in 'Seattle' it seems. This was pretty poor even considering the less than good competition. It wasn't so much a major point of failure that affects the rating but rather a massive dose of boredom as I completely failed to get excited by what was altogether a rather by-the-numbers movie. .... +A different premise +Decent cast (but wasted!) -Bored and wooden acting -Poor effects -Very,very Clichéd So that's 2+, 3-Watchable, laughable, forgettable -4/10

This movie is heavily underrated here imo. If anyone ever watches Sci-Fi and expects it to be believable, then they're delusional. This was as believable as Star Trek. The acting was good. The script was somewhat unique although space/earth collision stories are becoming more prevalent. The setting was pleasing and the special effects were good. The suspense was created by extreme circumstances in space with respect to magnetism and the conflict over how to deal with it. I found it entertaining, as much as a disaster movie can be. Not everyone survived, but at least Earth was saved in the end. The heroes - a female astronaut and her scientist hubby - equally credited for their roles in the event - awesome!!!

If you want bad script, bad production value, bad acting and altogether a waste of 90 minutes you'll never get back, then watch any of Cinetel Productions' movies. Lisa Hansen is famous in Hollywood for putting out C-pictures...not even B-minus. She finds crap, puts it on the screen and pockets the meager profits she makes on foreign distribution.Lisa Hansen is also known for questionable financial practices when she lands her production team in some unsuspecting city where she sets her films. But then, you might expect that given the sleazy, slippery, conniving producing she's known for.Collision Earth shows that you'll never go broke underestimating the taste of a bad producer.

I admit my bar wasn't that high. After all it is a made for TV, low budget, SyFy movie. I am willing to forgive mediocre FX and CGI - after all our expectations for those things has been raised to high art thanks to all the big budget flicks out there. I am willing to suspend disbelief in order to enjoy a decent action or science fiction story. I don't mind chuckling at cliché plot devices when they're tongue-in-cheek. I happily do these all these things when a film is so unbelievably bad that it becomes an unintentional comedy. This movie does none of these things for me. For a science-based plot the writing can't pass even a cursory understanding of a grade 9 curriculum. Not in one instance or two but over and over and over again. The effect was akin to being grabbed by the cranium and shaken violently out of the story so that you are left staring at all the other otherwise forgivable weaknesses and amateurish plot devices. I have seen worse movies, though only a few, and I now add this to the list of bad movies that make the mediocre ones much more enjoyable by comparison.