Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Such a frustrating disappointment

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

A meteor strikes the moon and creates regolith. Debris heads toward the earth and causes destruction. Discredited scientist Lana Gale (Amy Price-Francis) is the expert on the topic and her expertise is called back into service. Meanwhile in a subplot John (Stephen Baldwin) is a hotshot demolitions expert, someone Lana Gale would find attractive.To no surprise we discover the moon is breaking up and we need Stephen Baldwin to save us because Bruce Willis died in that other film. Of course, in like "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" there are those who claim we don't need to nuke, that things will heal themselves.This is a watered down made for TV movie with formula results. This is the kids version of the Willis film.

I give this a 5 because to me it is corny!! It seems like the younger generation believe all the junk that a computer produces is God's honest truth. It's not! You can tell that all the explosions are computer generation. Another thing you use linear charges to knock down a building. That is when just using conventional explosives. Now when you use nuclear everything changes. A lot of people are to the opinion that is, if you have 2 nukes alongside each other your going to get double the yield. Only trouble it doesn't work that way. In real life you do not drop or plant 2 nukes together, because only one is going to go off.When you have 2 nukes set at the same time to go off. You cannot get 2 electrical circuits to fire at the exact same time. One will be a milli-second off from the other & that is enough. One is going to detonate first & will vaporize the other. Hence, one detonation.How do I know this? I was a weapons mechanic in the USAF many moons ago & got to load both types of explosives & had to take a lot of courses on same.

I watched this film because some bozo at Dish Network gave it 3 stars. I expect a 3-star movie to have decent credentials while this one had ***NONE***.I don't need to list all its faults seeing as other IMDb reviewers have already done so quite eloquently. In a nutshell, it is SciFi without the Sci. For example, preparing a Space Shuttle for launch would require several weeks at the very least even if one was already at the launch facility. Simply moving the Shuttle to the pad takes the better part of a day yet somehow ASI managed to launch one within a few hours. And, by the way, it's an orbiter meaning capable only of attaining earth orbit.... just one of the countless technical glitches in this turkey. Actually the entire movie is just one gigantic mistake and an utter waste of time to watch with one possible exception.... it might be just the ticket for a kindergarten during a sudden blizzard if there was nothing else for the kiddies to do and nowhere they could go. A few of them might actually enjoy it.

The plot of EARTHSTORM can be summed up as DEEP IMPACT meets STAR WARS. It starts off as a typical low budget disaster movie, with an American city assailed by cheesy CGI meteorites and a bunch of dedicated scientists doing their best to figure out the science behind it.The second half of the film becomes a space adventure, which is when things get even worse which is mainly down to the calibre of the special effects (worse than a video game for the most part). There are lots of scenes which seem to be heavily indebted to the whole Luke-flies-into-the-Death-Star scenario.Cast-wise, we're treated to a chunky Stephen Baldwin (going the way of his brothers, by the look of it) slumming it throughout, and an aged A-Teamer (Dirk Benedict) wondering what happened to his career. I couldn't tell you about the other actors, because none of them registered.EARTHSTORM truly is a waste of time.