Deep Impact

Not so much science fiction as a realistic picture of our world facing a threat that could very well happen in real life. What happened at the beginning of the 20th century in Siberia, when a small asteroid with the power of several atomic bombs struck our planet, may well affect another part of the world in a few years on a much larger and catastrophic scale for life on earth, and this is exactly what this film is about. Unfortunately, the inhospitable universe is not conducive to life, and it's good to know that, or make a movie about it, which is, unfortunately, all we can do. Or to colonise other planets as an insurance policy for the preservation of the human race, but that would be getting really into science fiction, though movies about it would be awesome too. Deep Impact 2 to 10 :) But back to the film. I’m giving it four stars grinding my teeth, and I’m willing to ignore the ridiculous scene of the landing on the asteroid. (21/04/2003)

I don’t like this film and I don’t know exactly why. It’s terribly boring. By the way, have you noticed that when a film features an American president they are either a hero, a black man or a woman? (16/11/2007)

If it weren't for the huge dose of building capitalism at the end and the all-out US-centrism, it would have been a pretty fine disaster film with slightly above-average effects and fairly decent actors. Yet this is a typically average film that does not bore, but also does not surprise. By the way, why are a few stupid skyscrapers and one green statue a symbol of destruction for Americans? Is it because, in the face of the age of European monuments, their imagination is subject to an overwhelming impact? ;o))) (17/03/2004)

Armageddon destroyed this fragile alternative in 1998 with absolute dominance. And how could it not, with Michael Bay's brilliant action scenes, lavish marketing, and meticulous visuals – the classically edited and sensitive Deep Impact simply had no chance on a global scale. But it still has its qualities. Excellently portrayed characters, believable moments of chaos, confusion and mass hysteria, and last but not least, the magnificent and moving James Horner from the back rows with his typically grandiose musical compositions and a strong main theme. (15/11/2003)

Comparisons to Armageddon aren't fair; it's like an impressionist and a realist looking at the same blooming spring meadow and each painting it in their own way. One person might be drawn to one painting, another to the other, and that's fine. The overwhelming impact goes differently at the end of the world – more realistic, more dramatic, more human. Not as entertaining, but certainly not boring. In fact, if any part of the film left me relatively cold, it was the mission of the shuttle crew to drill and blow up the comet – whereas in Armageddon, that's the main plot, here, it's almost an unimportant subplot (made interesting mostly by Robert Duvall) and the most important stuff happens on Earth, with Morgan Freeman playing for keeps, Téa Leoni reconciling with her parents, Elijah Wood saving his family and his girlfriend's family... and a very listenable James Horner. Four stars and a bit of a fifth. (22/02/2020)