IMDb user comments for
10.5: Apocalypse (2006) (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Index

58 comments in total

---

34 out of 44 people found the following comment useful :-
Given the absolutely idiotic plot line(s) and lack of any..., 21 May 2006

Author: innocuous from Raleigh, NC, USA

scientific credibility, you might think that the producers would have at least done a good job filming this.

Alas, no. The CGI are good for a TV film, which isn't saying much, but the ENTIRE film (virtually every scene) is filmed in that modern, irritating "zoom-o-matic" style of cinematography. In order to lend a sense of action or reality, the camera zooms in or out every few seconds. The whole film looks like Uncle Ernie trying his new 8 mm camera out at Christmas, 1978. I timed one shot of the President's daughter talking to a doctor. It was 8 seconds long and had 5 zooms in it.

A very, very dumb film made very, very poorly.

---

30 out of 37 people found the following comment useful :-
What is wrong with director John (Zoom Zoom) Lafia?, 24 May 2006

Author: terrencemay from River Falls, WI United States

What is wrong with director John Lafia? Any chance of this film being any good was destroyed by the constant zoom in and zoom out. I have not seen many home movies filmed this bad. The constant zooming was so annoying that after an hour I had to turn it off. Of the hour I did watch the acting and dialog was unbearable. I really can't say if it got any better but the first hour was dreadful!

What is wrong with the directors in Hollywood now days? Why do they insist that all action scenes need to be filmed with a shaking camera or zooming all over the place (like MI:3)?

I liked the old days when good acting and action carried the scene not the blurred shaky camera work of today!

---

19 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
Zoom Zoom Zoom, 21 May 2006

Author: Cru3 from Vancouver, Canada

This is an escapist entertainment featuring a cast of good actors and some commendable production values - all rendered pointless by the director's incessant (and I do mean incessant) abuse of the zoom lens. Whose idea was that? The director? The director of photography? Who holds the blame? It became so nauseating that it effectively spoiled everybody else's hard work. The director is not a novice and yet he allows this same grievous mistake to sink this film as he did the previous 10.5 disaster TV movie. There seems to be a mistaken notion that manipulating the zoom lens equates with directorial style. Jess Franco would even be embarrassed.

---

23 out of 38 people found the following comment useful :-
The Monkeys Must Not Be Done, 20 May 2006

Author: geo8x6 from United States

It is said that if you gave a thousand monkeys typewriters, eventually they will write Shakespeare... Guess what. They aren't done yet.

This movie or for those into PURE science fiction. Things that happen in this movie could only happen in a fantasy world. They should have added a laugh track and called it a comedy. I wish writers would try to write a disaster movie based on something that could really happen, but turn it up just a bit. A 10.5 earthquake sounds horrific (which it would be) but the things that they lead you to believe that could happen if there were one is just too far out there.

The only reason to watch this is to see the CGI.

---

9 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Langella, visual effects and rescues almost make this worth seeing, 23 May 2006
Author: vchimpanzee from North Carolina

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

At the start of this sequel, some of the final scenes of "10.5" are repeated. The sight of the ocean rushing into what was Los Angeles turned out to be more impressive than I remembered.

But it's not over! More geological events, even worse than the ones on the coast, threaten to literally tear the country in half. The action starts in Idaho, and once again Dr. Samantha Hill and Dr. Jordan Fisher are called into action. Sometimes they actually fly to where the destruction is happening. Sometimes one of them stays behind to do actual work on forecasting what happens next--not an easy job since, for example, extinct volcanoes blow their tops with very little warning these days.

Meanwhile, rescue crews must travel to the numerous sites of mayhem. Included are brothers Brad and Will Malloy, as well as Natalie Warner (Garcelle Beauvais), whose mother Stacy Warner is monitoring the situation from headquarters. Natalie tries to act like she in charge but gets upstaged--until the second half, she does not seem to know what she is doing, though it has been a while since the incident that kept her out of the field for several years. Later, she seems quite confident. Laura Malloy, a nurse, is in a different location from her husband Will, but cell phones always seem to work no matter what--until she is trapped in a Las Vegas casino.

The first half of this miniseries does not start particularly well. It looks like the writers and editors were checking things off a list, without any real anticipation or preparation. The tsunami hitting Hawaii does look pretty impressive on a 13-inch TV, though the extreme low tide does look fake. Amazingly, Hawaii is hardly mentioned after that.

Then things start to improve. At least we are getting to know characters, but there doesn't seem to be much point. The characters seem to exist primarily in order to provide pointless conflict that takes away from the real story. That's not to say there aren't worthwhile moments.

The President's daughter Amy (Tamara Hope) is a Red Cross volunteer who is pressed into service helping Dr. Miguel Garcia (Carlos Bernard). These scenes are pretty good. And Beau Bridges does a better job this time (in some scenes) as the President--mainly when he is on the phone to Amy or Dr. Hill or Stacy Warner. And once during the second half he cries quite effectively. Barbara Eve Harris does a good job as the elder Warner. She really does look frightened in one scene.

Brad and Will attempt a dangerous rescue which is exciting but has negative consequences for anyone hoping for quality here.

The rescue scenes are some of the best, but they don't reflect the real scope of the disaster. They are very personal and individual. However, I recall one scene in "Pearl Harbor" that should more accurately reflect what would be seen if such a disaster was possible. Not everyone could be saved, and people had to just admit it. We don't really see that here.

The visual effects, though, are the real star of the show, when they work. The destruction of Hoover Dam is an amazing sight, one which a witness compares to Niagara Falls. I would agree. The so-called "rift fault" that races across the country also looks good. Later, George Washington's face falls off Mount Rushmore in another small victory for the visual effects crew.

Dr. Hill calls on her father Earl, who is gambling in Las Vegas years after quitting his job. The elder Dr. Hill developed a theory that the separation of the continents that began 300 million years ago will reach a peak and then go into reverse. This is what is happening now, the younger scientist believes, and she asks her father for help. Dana Delany's best scenes (really, her only good scenes) have her explaining basic geology to the President and to us.

Frank Langella delivers a fine performance as the elder scientist, who realizes something is happening in Las Vegas and decides to investigate. Then he must lead the escape effort when the ground swallows the 45-story casino he is in, helped by Jackson the bartender. It is a monumental effort and quite exciting, reminding me of the "Poseidon Adventure" movie NBC aired recently (but better). Laura is part of his group. Outside, the FEMA team has the Malloy brothers, led by Natalie and several other capable officials.

After the incident at Mount Rushmore, the destruction starts heading south. The President orders the evacuation of every state in the path of the evil "rift fault"--if it reaches the Gulf of Mexico, we will have a new waterway dividing the country. And as if that isn't enough, a new complication: Dr. Garcia is worried about his elderly parents in Houston. His mother (portrayed by another capable actor) refuses to move his sick father.

Wait, wait, we're not done! Just in case you didn't think things were bad enough, two of the country's largest nuclear reactors are outside Houston. Don't worry, though. Earl Hill to the rescue! If they can get to him and he can find some miracle solution.

One additional detail: Monument Valley in Utah looked beautiful, at least before the Native American's horse started acting up because it knew something was happening.

I would like to hear from geologists about whether there really is such fantastic software that uses massive amounts of data to make forecasts and produce colorful displays. Where do they get all these measurements, anyway? Oh, well, we're suppose to believe the world is literally falling apart, too.

Didn't I see this a few weeks ago on CBS? Except the threat was coming from above instead of below. But we don't have Randy Quaid in this one. We do have Frank Langella, though. It's not a complete disaster.

---

13 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Total Junk., 22 May 2006

Author: dalbrech from United States

Even the CGI effects...the only reason for watching this kind of crap... is bad. Some of the effects look like a badly done video game. THe destruction of Hawaii is particularly bad. The script is embarrassing. The characters are one cliché after another. The actors seem to be making no effort whatsoever..but considering how bad the script is you can't blame them. The original film was bad enough, but at least some of the effects were decent. This one lacks even that. Everyone involved with this should be ashamed foe themselves. A lot of this film is not even done on a minimum professional level. Even the infamous Sci Fi Channel original movies, bad as they are, manage that. If Uwe Boll made a TV miniseries, this is what it would look like.

---

17 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :-
10.5 rates a minus 1, 24 May 2006

Author: lani4 from Canada

The camera zooming back and forth was probably the single most irritating aspect of this disastrous disaster movie, that was even worse than the one before it. How actors with the talent of Kim Delaney and Frank Langella got roped into this pathetic film is bewildering. Scientifically it was atrocious.

The special effects were even worse, if that's possible, than the script and the direction.

I suspect that like Sharon Lawrence, who after leaving NYPD, got stuck in the equally tacky disaster flick 'Atomic Twister', Kim probably hopes that her participation in both these films will be quickly forgotten.

The part 1 was so bad it was funny, which is why we decided to watch the part 2 but part 2 didn't even manage to rise to the level of 'so bad it's funny', it was just pathetic.

This film may deserve a score of minus 1.

---

7 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
sequel just as thrilling and exciting as the 1st movie, 10 March 2007

Author: disdressed12 from Canada

as the sequel to 10.5,this movie is a worthy follow up.the action scenes are just as intense and spectacular,maybe even more so.there are less of the action scenes,more scenes on the human interest aspect and how people helped each other through all the crises.however,i did not find the movie boring at all.i thought the more dramatic scenes were well done.for me the movie fast paced,and also thrilling and exciting,as well as suspenseful.those people that bashed the first film for it lack of scientific accuracy and also bashed the CGI,should not even have watched this 1,but i have no doubt,there are some who did.for me,10.5:Apocolypse rates as high as the 1st 1,all things considered.My vote is 10.5/10

---

7 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Better than the original..., 17 November 2006

Author: No One from Australia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

There's no pleasing some people, I suppose. Everyone seems to agree that 'The Day After Tomorrow' is a good film (despite an unimaginative script, stock-standard characters and a dull story) but '10.5 Apocalypse' is rated below 'Epicenter'. 'Epicenter'!!! '10.5 Apocalypse' is, in some ways, better than the original '10.5'. There's a little more action, some of the special effects work is better and the camera work isn't as distracting. It's an enjoyable film and has characters we can actually care about. There's a little less drama and a little more action. The set pieces are good. Some of the special effects (most notably the dam scenes) are top notch to boot.

The biggest problem people seem to have with '10.5 Apocalypse' are the technical inaccuracies. Unless you're an earthquake expert (let's be honest here, very few people are) you probably won't even notice. It's all about the suspension of belief anyways.

Am I to believe there are millions of people watching this film and thinking, "Wait on a minute, that building didn't REALLY collapse!" Am I to believe that I'm the only person that expects a TV disaster movie to be anything BUT hugely accurate? It's entertainment, that's all. A little human drama, a little tragedy, a little mass destruction to spice up your Friday night. There's no disclaimer at the start that says, "WHAT FOLLOWS IS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE." It's not a documentary and it's not based on any actual events. So what's the problem? I think this film's rating of 3.6 is hugely unfair. It deserves better than this. It's not the next big budget disaster film but it's better than 'Epicenter'. This film deserves at LEAST a 4.0. Maybe even more.

If it were a documentary, I'd agree that this film is bad for being inaccurate. But the acting is better than half the TV dramas I've seen, the script is easy to chew and the special effects are better than average. See this film, and judge for yourself.

---

11 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Yuck!!! Save us from the 2nd Half!!!, 22 May 2006

Author: robbiesmith79 from United States

You know when someone learns Microsoft Powerpoint for the first time, that they have to prove their worth by including every single type of transition in the arsenal on every element, text, image, other. This movie was the same.

Zoom Zoom should be the title of this movie. I think I got up and walked away from the TV about all of 2 times, the first and the last; both times to get headache pills.

Count me out of the final half. Double yuck two thumbs down.

No

and

Thanks.

---

---

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Parents Guide	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history