… I didn’t mind “Impact’s” well-paced goofiness, despite really wanting to mind it. …The Washington Post says:
… what are we to make of a not-scary apocalyptic miniseries -- one in which the "villain" isn't an evil-looking craggy asteroid or meteorite but our own wheel o' cheese moon? … We like the sexy people in "Impact." We just miss the sexy plot.The Orange County Register says:
… Pretty much all of the dialogue is that bad. If Mystery Science Theater 3000 was still on the air, this piece of Cheez Whiz would rise to the top of the show's list. It begs to be mocked – when it's not lulling you to sleep. …The Salt Lake Tribune says:
… This plodding, lifeless science-fiction thriller about the moon careening toward Earth has about as much, um, impact as a wet noodle. A lunar disaster of this magnitude has never been so boring. …The Boston Globe says:
… An apocalypse would be a welcome relief from this wretched disaster knock-off … tells its feeble, scientifically absurd story with a truly shameless dependency on cliches. …Variety says:
… mostly silliness … the movie proves weakest in creating relationships for the key characters, including Maddie's ethically challenged struggling journalist (as if there's another kind) ex-husband. "Start thinking beyond what we believe is possible," Alex counsels early on regarding the threat. Actually, try not thinking at all, and you'll be better prepared to sit back and be rocked by this shallow "Impact."The Hollywood Reporter says:
… Unfortunately, despite the title, there's not a lot of dynamism in "Impact." Instead, there's a lot of heel-dragging, such as during a train journey in which a boorish Yank flirts uselessly with the affianced woman, or when characters moon (sorry) over photos of dead loved ones. Viewers sticking with "Impact" aren't looking for insights into the human condition; they're coming for smoking craters, staying for lunar landings and to giggle helplessly at the faux science. So get on with it already. …9 p.m. Sunday. ABC.