Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

It took awhile (most of the first half of the film) for this one to get going but I stuck with it and felt rewarded later. The bad guys are eco- terrorists and really nasty. I really enjoyed it when they got theirs...ha! The production values were actually pretty well done considering this was a Roger Corman project. The cast was a bit uneven, either really good or pretty awful. The good girl lead was awful whilst the bad girl lead was excellent...and so it went. Pare was effective as usual.I really thought the film told a compelling story, no shortcomings there. I recommend this movie if you enjoy somewhat low budget sci-fi that delivers a pretty big bang for the buck. Here is some clever film making...albeit it was a little to casual in the beginning. Pacing does matter! If you come across a copy somewhere check it out, I enjoyed it. It is definitely a lot better than the 4.4 it scored here.

Unfortunately, "Falling Fire" is one of the biggest duds we've seen in a long time.This 1998 Roger Corman New Horizons release is an unfocused, boring mish-mash. It is clearly a cash-in on the then-current rash of sci-fi hits such as Armageddon (1998), Deep Impact (1998), Johnny Mnemonic (1995), Starship Troopers (1997) Virtuosity (1995), Event Horizon (1997), Deep Rising (1998) and it even manages to rip-off the classic 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). It is especially similar to the more well-known Supernova (2000-filmed in 1998).Set in space, the plot seems to be some twaddle about a ragtag team of explorers supposedly trying to stop a huge meteor from hitting earth. Meanwhile Captain Daryl Boden (Paré) is having family troubles back on earth. His wife (Von Palleske) even gets into some hot water herself when she gets shot in the foot by the main baddie. Will they save earth from impending destruction? Will Paré emote more than Jeff Fahey or a piece of wood? (Don't) find out tonight! Also trying to horn in on the "V.R. craze" of the mid-1990s, any episode of the kids TV show "V.R. Troopers" (1994-1996) is better than this dreck. The most positive aspect of the movie we can name is the special effects were probably decent for the budget they had and the time it was made. Sadly though, the finished product is tedious with characters talking about scientific gobbledygook instead of making sense or even having action scenes.We believe we have come up with a reason why Fire is so disjointed and nonsensical and thus not engaging to the viewer: It seems the movie was longer at one point and was haphazardly edited down to a manageable length. The Canadian version under the odd title "The Cusp" has scenes not in the American release.We all love Paré and even he is slumming this time around. It seems he is sleepwalking and this is not his best moment. He brings no energy, but that is quite apropos as the whole production has no life. Paré was just along for the slow space ride. We also suspect that the American title was changed to Falling Fire to cash-in on Paré's most well-known work Streets Of Fire (1984).Apparently the chemistry of Paré & Heidi von Palleske was so great after their double whammy of Strip Search (1997) and 2013: The Deadly Wake (1997) it was decided they appear again together in this flick. They should have quit while they were ahead.This has a direct-to-cable feel and this is an example of a movie that has a short running time but feels much longer. The effects make the asteroid in question look like a gigantic piece of burnt toast and it occurred to us that the entire movie is like one big piece of burnt toast.Douse out this "Fire" tonight! For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I really enjoyed this film. Terrorism in Space. The religious terrorist cult aspect of the film is now (2007) more relevant than pre-911 which is when this movie was produced. Based on the user comments herein, it's unfortunate that Hollywood's 'big budget - big stars' treatment of asteroid doomsday impact seem to have biased the north American audience against a low budget version. I would recommend reading The Hammer of God and then seeing this film. Unfortunately the movie ends with the close encounter - atmospheric rebound as the asteroid glances off the earth's atmosphere. Even a near miss would be catastrophic with an object of this size. The final shot of the movie shows a minor streak high in the earth's atmosphere as children play on a beach. The meteor streaks by briefly. Earth is saved. The truth is even a near miss would have global climate impacts. The terrorists would win, but that's another movie I guess. ........

There is not too much to be said about this bad film. It's a science-fiction story, with ecological ambitions. Low on budget, and low on inspiration. The story line and the general idea are acceptable, but with the many space disaster movies having been made in the last ten years, and with the terrorism theme that much beaten in movies and in real life this film brings nothing new. I personally had a hard time fighting against falling asleep - even during what were supposed to be the top suspense scenes. A group of unknown actors get more screen time than they are used to, but none of them crosses the threshold of mediocrity. The effects are early 80s TV level. The director put some decency in his work, avoiding to let the film fall completely into ridicule, but this is not enough. 3/10 on my personal scale.