Quantum Apocalypse (TV Movie 2010) Poster

(2010 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
42 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Hard to put into words just how bad this film is.
chorle-15 July 2009
My wife and I are Science fiction devotees and thus took a chance on this film when offered as a World Premiere by Comcast On Demand (should have realized it would be dreadful since the charge was only $3.99, much lower than most of its new fare). We managed to sit through all of it, mouths agape at the temerity of anyone actually making this load of rubbish. Difficult to put into words just how awful this film is, much worst than a middle school production - lame plot, dreadful dialogue, astonishingly unappealing cast, holes in the script, continuity problems, laughable acting, bad sound quality, absolutely nothing to recommend it. When Comcast offers a world premiere, duck! This film makes the usual fare on the Saturday Afternoon Science Fiction Channel look like Citizen Kane.
166 out of 198 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Disastrous Nonsense
mani-nanna-650-1573481 February 2010
I am the type of guy, who can watch Commando with Arnie and enjoy it, as well as watch An Andalusian Dog by Luis Bunuel and enjoy it too. I like great movies but time to time I enjoy bad ones, even the movies that are UBER-BAD, in "so bad that it's good" sense.

This one is not the case. You will actually feel the physical pain while trying to watch this thing.

Why didn't I turn off the screen after halfway through? Well, to be honest, I just HAD to know how far the idiocy can go.

Now about flaws...

1. When you have budget of 2,5 lemons, just DON'T, don't try to make another 2012 movie. (2012 was bad enough even with it's big bag budget). Effects were not only horrible in technical way, but most of them were making no sense whatsoever.

2. It's not necessary to find a star for your movie. There are lots of talented people who can act and are not stars. In fact, I like bad acting, cause It makes me laugh. But in this film, you will not see even that. Except some of the actors who OVERACT terribly, you can't find ANY acting at all.

3. Scientific background of the story: OK... how many times do I have to use the word nonsense? In fact, transsexual giraffe, trying to take over the world with the help of green cockroaches, sounds more believable than the bubble that characters use here to justify the existence of this rubbish.

4. Characters. Well, you just CAN'T swallow it. In fact I think that's where the genius of the director of this movie is hidden. It is really, really hard to create characters, more unbelievable than the ones in this movie. Movie makers just set the milestone in that direction I think.

5. Plot. Well, at least I can't say that there were many plot holes. Because, to have a plot-hole, first of all you need to have a plot. Does this film have one? NO!

Overall! Terrible, unwatchable movie!
59 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
"Awful beyond comprehension" does not even begin to explain...
zetoss_rules29 January 2010
There is really no other way for me to express what this movie is than this: A disaster movie where the only real disaster is the movie itself.

When reading the other reviews of this movie I thought to myself "Well, when a movie is bad enough I can usually laugh at it for being so bad and have a good enough time watching it anyway" and so I decided to see this with my own eyes. I implore you, dear reader, NOT to repeat my mistake! There is not enough alcohol, nitrous gas or low standards on the surface of the entire planet for anyone to find any enjoyable aspect in this movie at all.

Alphabetical order of flawed elements. Just because I want everyone to understand how bad this is.

Actors - The best ones are simply bad, the rest are horrible. Some of them at least make a bit of an effort.

Cameras and angles - Static shooting almost all the way, but it's actually not that bad compared to when the cameras move. In one scene where a character is driving, you'd think they bolted a $50 VHS camera to the hood and had him actually drive around with that.

Computer effects - You can easily spot them, if the graphic Ultra Low quality doesn't tip you off, the absence of the laws of physics will. Many movies from the 90's had Better computer generated effects. Even some of the Bad movies.

Other effects - I could not find a single one that was just slightly low-budget or just had a mild flaw. Every last one was flat out bad.

Script - Someone should be unemployed by now...

The rest - You probably already get the picture.

Summary: Gather your neighbors and have the most stupid one write the script, the most incompetent one manage effects, the ones with the worst poker faces be the actors and finally let someone with impaired motor skills handle the camera and you will make a masterpiece compared to this. Unfortunately I'm not joking.
58 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unbelievably Absurd and Lame… and with Fake Reviews
claudio_carvalho25 June 2010
In the city of Parish, the Major Ben Marshall lives with his autistic brother Terry, his son Leo, his daughter Samantha and his second wife Lynne. When a comet changes its route and collides on Earth, the scientists discover that an anomaly is the cause and they bring two geniuses to join their team in the research. They find that the anomaly is a gravitational vacuum indeed and mankind is doomed to annihilation. But Terry convinces his brother Ben to drive him to Houston to save the planet.

"Quantum Apocalypse" is an unbelievably absurd and lame film. It is amazing how awful it is: story, screenplay, director, cast, special effects, characters, nothing works in this terrible movie. I found strange that three users "loved" this crap and I found the typical of fake reviews since the three users have only one review in IMDb. Unfortunately I am not able to go back to the past like in the story and in the end I lost 94 minutes of my life watching this dreadful film. My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "O Apocalipse" ("The Apocalypse")
29 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Details, details
armac-674-8627971 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
It's amazing how they managed to mix up all the technical details in poor attempt to make the movie appear more hi-tech without real need to.

First, for some reason they mention that Amiga OS is superior to every other OS, despite the fact that Amiga has been out of business for about 10 years or more. In the same scene,where Ben talks to his brother Terry, he mentions that communications are down and Terry just says "It's OK I rerouted my connection to other DNS server...." that's just....

Furthermore when the two scientists use the NSSA computers to calculate the complex mathematical formula, ERROR MEMORY FULL appears on the main display.

In the end, when Terry finally manages to get to Houston, he brings his home computer as it was superior to all government machines and when Ben asks was everything OK he answers "They needed VGA cable and I only have DVI" yes and that's his Amiga we are talking about! Seriously is it so hard to find just one man to work on this movie that has some general knowledge about computers? Come on I mean these are pretty basic stuff over here.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Awful beyond any description
TheLittleSongbird22 June 2011
I don't why I keep watching these SyFy movies, mostly it's because of curiosity or that there is nothing else interesting on. I do dislike a lot of their output, but I have only despised about 6 so far other than this(2010:Moby Dick, The Apocalypse, Titanic II, Mega Piranha, Dinocroc vs. Supergator and Alien vs. Hunter).

Quantum Apocalypse is down there with the movies of theirs I despised. It is an awful film beyond any description and has no redeeming qualities. The camera work and editing are so static it is painful on the eyes and the effects are crude and look fake. The script is cheesy and full of holes and there is some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard in my life.

And to make things worse, the direction is pretty much wretched, the pace meanders all over the place and the story is dull and hard to take. The characters are so poorly written and stereotypical I did not care for them at all, while the acting is dreadful, even those who visibly try are bad.

All in all, awful and one of the worst SyFy movies you'll ever see. 0/10 Bethany Cox
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not a good movie, and I loved it.
deli_gray31 December 2013
Acting was OK, the plot was survivable if week. The mix between set,CGI and model was a bit dodgy, but worst was the sound production - I kept missing little bits of dialog. I am also not sure if it was the direction or the production (I am not a film buff), but I did find I had to keep piecing together what was going on, when I felt this should have been given to me by either (both) production & direction.

Biggest let down - name of the movie - Quantum erm... - hu - nothing to do with it. And the box cover showing a large bridge getting smashed - nothing so dramatic happened. Still with a budget of $2.5M, not such a bad job, if you are not a B-movie fan, don't watch this movie, but for me it hit the sweat-spot.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
I've seen worse.
rickhibdon26 August 2018
It is what it is. A cheapie made for TV movie. However I did manage all the way through it in one sitting. It's another "end of the world" movie. And of course we all know it'll end well. Effects are typical TV poor, but effects don't make the movie (for me anyway) Typically poor acting, though there are a few exceptions. Most notably the savant uncle. Who is actually quite good, and believable. I know enough about computers and quantum physics to know crap when I hear it (which it is) However.... the ONE thing that saved the movie for me. In the early scene where the uncle and niece are making pancakes, and he says his are better than the mix. Niece says "How do you know? You've never made them before?" He replies "Yes I have! 762 times" I missed that connection in the beginning. Later after the silly time "rewind" it's repeated. He says "Yes I have! 76THREE times". He knows! He's the only one that realizes they are in a time "loop" and destined to repeat it. He's more knowledgeable than ALL of them... yet tells no one. I give it a lot of credit for that subtle surprise.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
How low can you go?
mikymro13 January 2012
It is too bad you can't rate with 0... IMDb crew has to think about adding this. Even giving it a one star can seem unfair. I think that Hollywood screen writers could use a cold shower. Icy one, to be more accurate. The characters are lousy, to say the least. How many stereotypes can one use????? The crazy blonde physics genius, the semi-Asian new hot wife, the hot blonde secretary, the cheerleader and her conflict with an old boyfriend, the step mom - son conflict... should i continue? The unfolding of the action... great! Hahaha! just a small joke. The special effects remind me of Ed Wood movies, as if this wasn't 2012...

I urge the people not to waste 1 and some hours of their lives on this.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Read a book instead
ag-hodgson14 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The only thing worse than the plot is the dialogue, and the acting, and the science, and the sound, and the effects.

I wasted 15 minutes of my life watching this drivel then went and did some accounts. It hadn't improved when I got back. My wife came in half way through and confirmed my thoughts. "What on earth is this rubbish?" Then she fell asleep.

Londo should have stuck to Babylon Five, he's totally not credible as the US President (and your record has been patchy guys).

Gigi was edgy in Farscape but she was an alien and they are supposed to be weird.

There was the cliché of the autistic savant, but well played in all fairness.

If it hadn't taken itself so seriously it might not have been so bad but this was really, really awful.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Beyond dreadful
clarkandrew10 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Oh where to begin? How about with the title, Quantum Apocalypse? For a start the film makers don't seem to understand what 'Quantum' means.

Not a good start.

Then there's the mysterious space jelly that somehow moves around on it's own affecting everything in it's path but only when it's facing them.

The special effects look as though they were put together by a film student. A bad film student who is currently failing to pass any classes at all. Earth is seen from Mars and looks closer than the Moon! The script is appalling and was probably scribbled onto the back of napkins in between scenes.

The acting is terrible and the characters generally unlikeable. 'Rock star' scientists? Give me strength.

The autistic guy apparently just watched Rain Man a couple of times and then tried (and failed) to copy Dustin Hoffman.

To say this was a disappointment is an understatement, a disappointment is no toy in your Kinder Surprise, this is a crime against humanity.

However there is one glimmer of hope. Someone, somewhere gave these morons 2.5 million dollars to create this cr*p and with standards this low we could all try and get the first brain fart we come up with made into a movie. Or just take the money and blow it in Vegas. Let's be honest that would be better as no one else would have to suffer through our creation.

Avoid. Go watch Malibu Shark Attack instead, it's dreadful but at least laughably dreadful.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Disaster movie turns out to be a disaster!
paul_haakonsen25 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this movie with no particular expectations, and that was a good thing, because I would have been sorely disappointed. The idea in itself is probably good enough on paper, but put to film, no - doesn't really add up.

There are too many small mistakes throughout the movie that brings down the movie's overall rating. For some reason, Trish's clothing keep changing throughout the movie. Lynne gives her stepson a handgun, and she is a police officer - right, good logical thinking there.

The effects were below average. I especially loved the part where the vortex starts ripping the house apart, and one wooden pillar becomes twisted in it shape like it was made of rubber. Wood usually splinters? Also, there is a major lack of showing disasters, the story put you up to expect seeing destruction of Asia, maybe even America. But it sums up to maybe less than 5 minutes of actual screen time of destruction and mayhem.

The best part about the movie would have to be Stephanie Jacobsen, just because she is eyecandy, and the acting of Rhett Giles which is actually quite nice in this horrendous movie.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
It really is that bad. Waste your time watching something pointless with decent action and graphics instead.
Rumified7 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
After reading all the reviews I must sadly agree. I'm as much as a movie goer as the next person, but the story is ridiculous. Not a funny ridiculous, but a sad ridiculous. I found myself pausing lots of times due to lack of interest.

The movie Twister from the 90s had wayyy better graphics than this movie. Dx I do like the element of how the environment seem in ruins, so I give them some props for that. Seems like a very low budget movie. Even some low budget films are great, but the actors are terrible, they could at least make up for the movie's loss. Crappy actors and effects, with a whack out story line is just a disaster of a movie. Don't waste your time watching it.

On the lighter side, the 'mentally challenge' actor did a great job playing handicapped. I also found it humorous that the weight of the World, in this case literally, was in the hands of an old PC filled with data from his hard drive of the mentally challenge character.

Even more shocking and hilarious, that after all of that data and geniuses, this 2 college students, and everything the World could come up with, is just a stupid missile that got shot at this 'thing' in space and like that, it was over. I mean, really? Hahaha. I quickly delete it off my hard-drive, and my iPod, what a waste of an hour and a half. I found myself shaking my head wondering if I would have enjoyed it more if I was on drugs. @___@
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Disatser Movie
imbaluris14 February 2010
I would generally agree that the dialogue and acting was of a rather dismal standard for this movie, but then again, that's what it is -- a low budget film, without the resources or aspiration to do better.

I kept watching because of the extraordinary acting of the man who played the uncle with what appears to be a variant of Asperger's syndrome. I think it's the actor Rhett Giles, but can't confirm, as during the film his name (and that of too many other characters) was mentioned too few times to even establish his identity for the casual viewer.

I was very impressed with this actor's ability and would like to see more. He had the mannerisms down to a tee and the scriptwriters certainly knew the aptest lines to supply him with.

I thought the actor playing the mayor of the town, the brother of the character named above, did a competent job with the dialogue given him. I thought he had more on-screen presence than the man chosen to play the president.

The young man who played his son also showed some charisma, maybe it was just his dark good looks, but I am sure he will find other roles.

I was surprised and pleased to see Stephanie Jacobsen, an Australian who no longer sounds like one. But she's had significant roles in The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Battlestar Galactica, so I'm not sure why she would agree to sign on for a project that must have had so little funding behind it.

Despite the loss of 90 minutes when I could have been doing something else, I'm still glad I saw the slightly strange uncle character -- whoever played him (if it was Rhett Giles), he deserves an honourable mention.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
"My dad is going to make sure everything is OK"
p-stepien18 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
A cosmic anomaly causes a comet to crash into Mars. USSA (the films unauthorised version of NASA) firstly focuses on the cosmic debris, but soon shifts its focus on the anomaly itself. To their horror this is no longer about a couple of meteors hitting Earth, but about the anomaly gobbling up our planet. A group of hip crazy scientists get to work to find a solution. Meanwhile in Los Angeles a governor and his family live everyday life unknowlegdeable of the events at hand. That is save for a savant uncle, who is Rain Man square...

A TV movie with much lower marks than I would have foreseen, as I have seen multiple crappy films rated in the mid 5's. Nonetheless an easy watch with what seems to be filled with relatively astute tech jumbo. The special effects are scifi TV quality, so don't expect anything superb, nonetheless they are good enough not to distract from the movie. The acting in general is OKish (albeit it does have some rough spots), even if the film is populated with stereotypes. On a technical level the only thing that really bugged me was the sound.

Problem with the movie is that it just isn't engaging in the slightest and the budget limitations really show, especially in regards to locations and settings. Also the whole motive with the savant is so clichéd, that it converts your mouth into a smile. All in all however more or less a fun ride, but I doubt I'll remember this movie by next month...
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Awful, unfortunately...
Brazilian7815 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Really awful movie, I completely agree with previous reviews. But... you know... I HAD to watch it and see for myself, which I regret.

*** SPOILER *** The movie was watchable up to the point where the police officer gives her weapon to her stepson (?). That was lame. Worse than that was the guy getting shot. That was pure drama and I had to stop watching the movie to come here and comment. I thought this was a TV movie, not a trash movie. Its mood looks serious but you can't really watch things like this and think they meant to be serious. Its a joke, but its NOT fun.

If you want to watch a great TV movie, go for The Day After. Thats a really good movie.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Quantum Apocalypse: Pretty damn terrible scyfy nonsense
Platypuschow17 August 2017
Scyfy originals are never going to meet critical acclaim but often they hold a certain charm about them that makes them watchable in that dumb viewing type of way.

Sadly Quantum Apocalypse doesn't have that charm and is one of their many many many many meteor apocalypse films and when you've seen one you've officially seen them all.

Containing that common scyfy original side plot about a step parent and resentful step child I do question why we see this so often.

Credit however where credit is due, many of the cast are quite competent including the highly underused Gigi "Farscape" Edgley and Rhett Giles who puts in a career best performance as an autistic.

Make no mistake they don't make up for this embarrassing clichéd mess but they do bring levity to what could have been one of the scyfy channels worst if they weren't present.

The Good: Gigi Edgley Usual Scyfy pseudo science

The Bad: Usual Scyfy pseudo science

Soundtrack

Offensively recycled and unoriginal

Dumb ending

Things I learnt from this movie:

Gigi Edgley needs to pick her roles better
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Some early faults, but it's just a $2million TV movie. Plenty of good points.
rperry-1727 January 2013
A lot of folks are trashing this movie without understanding the context.

a. It's a TV movie b. Budget was an estimated $2.5million With that in mind, I'd like to review this one in a more technical sense for the film students out there, and highlight where I think it was good.

First, some obvious faults.

Some of the special effects are lame, other acceptable. The lame ones should have been seen as such and cut.

There are some sound problems which hint at them having lost on-set sound and having to resort to the audio recorded by the camera. Folks, there is a thing called dubbing. Or at least try to equalise the camera audio.

The casting of Peter Jurasik as the President was insane beyond words. Not because of his acting at all, but he simply does not look the part. Just look at the bit part actors surrounding him, they look the part, he stands out like a sore thumb.

The casting of Gigi Edgley as one of the 'rock-star scientists' was good, and after a very worrying start, she gets into the role and makes good of it. However, simply having a dash of green in your hair and wearing a tie around your neck when wearing a normal dress does not make you a 'rock-star scientist'. It makes the wardrobe and makeup dept look crap.

That's me done with the negatives. Let's review the brighter side...

Other IMDb sections claim this was filmed using a sub $2,000 Panasonic AG-HVX200 HD video camera. Well, I think the result is superb.

Throughout this film, the cinematography is first rate. Lots of very nice camera moves, including several closeups that turn into running tracking shots. Framing and lighting is always good.

The plot may have some holes, but hey, it's a TV movie, so don't take it so seriously.

Lots of location filming, which must have eaten into the budget. This helps keep away from the TV movie format, and keeps the thing moving.

On balance, some big minuses, but for a TV film, very well technically executed on the whole.

Epilogue....

About the bad acting. The director, Justin Jones, was not inexperienced. But as Second Unit Director or Assistant Director (57 titles), he perhaps did not have enough experience of spotting and correcting over acting.

That error mainly occurs in the first half of the film, along with most of the other 'faults'.

Conclusion: As a TV film, very well made, and watchable in my view. At no point does it fall apart, although it makes you start to cringe a little early on. I've seen a couple of worse Big Budget films costing far far more.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Sy-Fy Channel does it again
moustasch118 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
My wish for the new year is that the Sy-Fy Channel take some of it's money to purchase some old TV series, or create some new ones, and run them instead of giving us crap like this movie. Either that or take the money it spends on any 5 of these films, put it all together, and try to make at least one decent film.

While the premise of the film was halfway decent, the execution of it was dismal. Horrible special effects, terrible acting, bad writing...you name it, it's all here. Pretty much everyone who "acted" in this movie was bad with the exception of Rhett Giles, the autistic savant, Jenna Craig, as his niece (even though her part was pretty small), and Shirly Brener as the teen love interest (those 3 were the only reason I gave this a 2 rating. Without them...a zero). The effects are standard Sy-Fy badness. There a scene with a tornado that takes an 8" square porch column and hurls it into the sky, but instead of snapping it into pieces it bends and wiggles like a worm as it floats upward. And please, don't get me started about the lame dialog exchange between the two guys while they're fighting over Ms. Brener and the extreme overacting of her ex- boyfriend. No wonder she dropped him.

All in all this was the kind of movie that would have me pulling the plug on the Sy-Fy channel for good if it wasn't for some of the series that are on there. Like I said earlier...MORE SERIES, LESS MADE FOR TV MOVIES.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Has some entertainment value
sb-2915 February 2010
What can I say? Hmmm... it was a hell of a lot better than Hardwired (the Cooba Gooding Jr. fiasco I watched last night).

The main actor did an awesome job as the "rain man" type savant. Consistent and entertaining.

Apart from that, the acting was funny.. It was like every actor was horribly mis-cast. Centerfold's as secretaries, aerobics teachers playing security guards, and a university professor playing the president. It was very amusing to see what kind of character would pop up next.

They did read their basic lines OK, a bit better than a porn movie without the porn.

I like any trashy sci-fi and this one held my interest until its very weak ending.

In comparison, the "budgeted", Val Kilmer starring Hardwired had me asleep in my chair.
8 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Unbelievably awful *#@*!$&
this_is_oz21 September 2010
I regret to acquire this movie, and even I regret more to spend 5 minutes more in trying to watch it. It is simply horrible from casting, acting, storyline, I actually do not believe there exist any person that think this movie will be a good one. It hurts my eyes to watch and like I said, after 5 min of watching, I decided to switch to another movie. Simply put, just use your resources to anything else but this film... The title is very promising though, but not with the movie. I think they should adjust the title so that I is relevant with the content, maybe something like "Another Crappy Disaster Movie" or "Result of Poor Judgment from the Producer and Studio"...
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
It was better than average, for this type of B Movie.
atrillion27 January 2010
All the characters were likable and interesting. The unlikely hero was a nice touch to the story. The locations although average were good enough. The special effects were extremely good, a bit brief but they served the movie as well. The story has some very interesting elements. The subplot had my imagination thinking of future ideas for sci-fi movies. This is a very good late night flick to cozy up and watch with someone. I've only recently got into watching B rated Apocalyptic movies. I've seen quite a bit of them. But this will be one of my favorites. Because there's plenty of fun and fear here. Plus an evil villain that springs out of nowhere to great effect. And by the way... It has a good ending!
18 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
I'm Starting To Get Fed Up With The Sci-Fi Channel
Theo Robertson11 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I'll say one good thing about the Sci-Fi Channel - It's very consistent . The bad thing however is that the films they show are consistently bad and QUANTUM APOCALYPSE is typical of stuff they show . There are other types of stories like sword and sorcery adventures and giant creature often living in the sea and well that's it really . Sword and sorcery , giant creature and disaster flick that reminds you of either 70s disaster movie or latest Hollywood blockbuster

No matter what genre the film is the entire is hampered by the budget . CGI is always to the fore and never convinces the audience . This film is slightly worse than most because the cinematography gets very murky at crucial moments like a brief shot of dark matter destroying London . The lack of budget also leads to events taking place via exposition as in a off screen journalist describing events as in " London has been rocked by a series of earthquakes "

This line of dialogue also shows the rather naked contempt these type of films have for their audience by scientific inaccuracies . London is nowhere near a major geological fault line so even if an asteroid containing dark matter landed in the south of England I fail to see how this would lead to earthquakes . But when you've got a film where all the scientists resemble a high school sports team you shouldn't expect any realism
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrible movie, do not recommend it: no science, no eye candy, bad acting
siaon16 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The movie opened decent enough, with the actor for the mayor of the town (in my opinion) setting down some decent back story and sympathy. I started catching on just how bad this movie was around the time they first tried to do 'science' talk.

The script writer's science understanding seems to be at the creationist level at best, probably worse: trying to change the planet's axis or orbit by detonating as many nuclear weaponry at the North Pole as possible. Complete bullshit.

Characters also make chains of horrible decisions, such as throwing a car over injured people, instead of putting it back down / throwing it the other way.

On the overall acting: I personally liked acting for the father (mayor), and the uncle (autist). The rest could hardly be called meager even.

On the overall effects: Could be rendered better on your home computer. Horrible examples include the rockets fired at the North Pole (and their detonation) and the gravitational anomalies.

On the overall plot: Standard completely implausible 'what-if' scenario. What if the paper I will soon write my homework on suddenly disappears? Not going to happen, not made plausible.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Pleasantly Surprised
TheMouse16 February 2010
Relative to other Skiffy flicks, I'd actually give this a 9. But since that would be a bit misleading I'll just say that the script was more intelligent, and the actors (mostly) better than I expected. The teen-aged son was a particularly nice surprise in terms of how he was written (normal kid) and acted; I'd seriously keep an eye out for that young man to go onto much bigger things. The effects and sets are budget but overall they did a great job with what they had.

The cons to the flick have been highlighted by others; more than a few cases of bad casting (one receptionist in particular is painful in the role) and the limited budget made for more telling than showing, unfortunately.

But if you've ever wasted time on one of Skiffy's creature features, this will be a considerable improvement.
7 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed