Let's be realistic.

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Louis Gossett, Jr., Jamiz Woolvett, Ed O'Ross. People must stop a computer from launching nuclear bombs.This is like an odd blend of War Games and Navy Seals, though it works! The performances contributed here are all above par for a movie of this type. One does not typically expect realism from these American GI movies, as most often than not, the budget goes towards effects, high dollar action stars, and location shooting than script, props, or good performances. So imagine my surprise when I came across this little underdog.Awesome action, with a little humor peppered throughout, and some awesome acts, this actioner walks you through some very suspenseful moments, high action sequences, and beautiful settings.All in all? It is an enjoyable surprise if you like the military-type actioners. Otherwise, there is no reason to go here, as it's all about military action.It rates a 7.1/10 from...the Fiend :.

The movie was obviously low budget which doesn't bode well for an action flick. However, the motivational premise of the movie surrounding Gulf War vets was unique enough to make this worth watching on a rainy afternoon (or late night). Acting by both Louis Gossett, Jr. and Sarah Chalke were notable. Good job on both parts.

Nice idea. A secret silo has a computer failure at the change of the year (y2k, get the title?). A skilled team is coerced to go in and fix it, but their efforts are fatigued by drug lords and internal US armed forces strife. Unfortunately the characters are hollow and the idea is poorly executed. Remove the y2k theme and the glib characters, and there might be a solid movie here. Definitely worthy of a remake! If you watch it, don't sweat the details (which aren't terrible, just bad) and try to enjoy the underlying concept. While the current version is a 'MacGyver' movie (at best), a remake could be on par with 'Force 10 from Navarone.' If you like tension, a good plot, well developed characters, and nice plot twists... wait for the remake.

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.