This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Very predictable. Myra's Russian accent is really bad. Goofs:Vince plans to send the missile into space. Nuclear missiles cannot achieve orbit, let alone escape it.The Marines did not respond to the attack properly, especially if they were SpecOps guys. Then did not seek cover, they did not pick their targets, they shot while standing without moving, etc.Where did Thompson's backup crew (the ones guarding the silo while they were re-targeting the missile) come from? Vince's character yells a lot and is a real sissy until three quarters through when he is willing to die rather than change the target of the missile.Seward would not have the authority to order an incursion into a foreign country.Imagery and screens on the silo computers are not at all like 1969 era displays.

Louis Gossett Jr. is always watchable. I wasn't expecting this film to be as good and as entertaining as it turned out. I'm not saying it was brilliant, but I didn't feel like I wasted an afternoon. Mostly, I felt Gossett needs to be in better films that are up to his talents. But it was a good effort, none the less. I haven't watched it in a while, but I'm willing to see it again. I did feel the so-called "comedy" was a bit over-arched. And I like humor breaking up some dramatic moments. Done well, (like the way David Lynch does it) is nothing short of genius. But in this film it just seemed a bit silly and made to take up time. And not as character driven as it really should be.

Normally, when a film rates this low, I find other things to like about it. Namely, its silliness. To say I didn't laugh throughout this film would be a lie. This movie provides a great many laughs. Its just. . . well, this is not supposed to be a comedy.Even so, I enjoyed other awful attempts at seriousness. Examples include Disney's, "Epcot: The Celebration," and Ed Wood's "Plan 9 From Outer Space." The difference with "Y2K" is that they are exploiting real fears. Similar to "Reds," the subject matter is deadly serious. "Reds" ranked a one in my book by candy coating a serious subject, in a ridiculous movie formula. The same goes for "Y2K." The only thing these films have in common besides their poor rating, is the fact that they highlight fiction. On the one hand the fiction of the great communist movement, and on the other the fiction of the great threat to our times, the year 2000 computer problem. Give me a break on both fronts.

Brilliant title infers a film with hundreds of possibilities, and they chose this one? everyone's into Y2K, it'll be an anagram associated with the year 1999 and let's face it -- it's *&^&^%^%ing spooky, eh? so what do we get? a half-baked testosterone fest with godawful dialogue poorly acted. the "movie" bearing those dread three characters Y2K is supposedly about a U.S. missile in South America -- "We had missiles here?" the computer geek of the piece asks. "Duh," respond audiences. -- that gets a little bit kooky when it fritzes in response to 2000. (absolutely every other piece of technology seems to be functioning 100%, however.)until an ending that takes forever to reach (you won't believe the one character's justification for his actions), we suffer through sheer stupidity.if apocalypse does come with the calendar's turn, i think the time until then could be better spent in millions of ways.