Just like Armageddon an object from space threatens to destroy humanity (one is a comet the other is an asteroid, quite simply its a somewhat more realistic story than the other attempts to view the scenario from a serious point of view While the other is a more 'fun' story.
The story isn't bad but the over sentimentality detracts from the story, in some ways is too much. - I also wonder how much actual research the writers actually did as the more serious aspect is ruined purely by bad science, some are obvious ones, like the tail of the comet facing the wrong direction, or the fact that tsunamis actually slow down as they reach the shoreline.
The acting is about on par with Armageddon, the more serious aspect is captured pretty well, but it's hard to compare with it's rival movie as it approaches everything from a different viewpoint.
If you were to ask which of the two movies was better I would probably reply Armageddon, but such a question is like asking is whether Skittles are better than M&M's, a lot of people like both and don't really favour one or the other.
I just say enjoy the movie for what it is.
The story isn't bad but the over sentimentality detracts from the story, in some ways is too much. - I also wonder how much actual research the writers actually did as the more serious aspect is ruined purely by bad science, some are obvious ones, like the tail of the comet facing the wrong direction, or the fact that tsunamis actually slow down as they reach the shoreline.
The acting is about on par with Armageddon, the more serious aspect is captured pretty well, but it's hard to compare with it's rival movie as it approaches everything from a different viewpoint.
If you were to ask which of the two movies was better I would probably reply Armageddon, but such a question is like asking is whether Skittles are better than M&M's, a lot of people like both and don't really favour one or the other.
I just say enjoy the movie for what it is.