I give credit to the director for trying but don't expect much. The storyline is like any other disaster movie, only difference is how the disasters come about. The special effects are terrible and you can see clearly they are computerized and transfered - hardly believable. Some of the characters got under your skin, and Christopher LLoyd - maybe it 's his age but a disappointment from his days in Back To The Future. The actors did do a nice job carrying the movie but the special effects just didn't seem to help it - in fact it made you cringe at the way some of the effects appeared. A made for TV film for a rainy Sunday afternoon.
26 Reviews
Generic and predictable...
paul_haakonsen19 August 2014
"Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" is a very generic and stereotypical disaster movie that follows the dummies handbook of how to make a disaster movie. Everything in the movie was so predictable and scripted that you saw it coming a mile away. And this really brought down the overall enjoyment of the movie.
Sure, the movie was entertaining enough for what it is, but if you have seen any other disaster movie, then you basically have seen this one as well - in theory.
The story is about a series of disasters that happen around the world, and the future of the entire planet rests in the hands of a few people that run against time to save the Earth.
Yeah, basically the same as most other disaster movies. And for some odd reason all these events were happening all around these people. It just didn't make sense. Why would all these cataclysmic events take place around these and not at random locations around the world? Effects-wise, then "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" was adequate. The effects worked well enough for what they were supposed to portray. But they weren't mind-blowing or overly impressive. So don't get your hopes up for these.
As for the acting, well people were doing good enough jobs with their given roles. Joel Gretch was the one who carried the movie, no doubt about it.
"Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" is a very average run-of-the-mill disaster movie that offers nothing new to the genre. You watch this movie once and never again.
Sure, the movie was entertaining enough for what it is, but if you have seen any other disaster movie, then you basically have seen this one as well - in theory.
The story is about a series of disasters that happen around the world, and the future of the entire planet rests in the hands of a few people that run against time to save the Earth.
Yeah, basically the same as most other disaster movies. And for some odd reason all these events were happening all around these people. It just didn't make sense. Why would all these cataclysmic events take place around these and not at random locations around the world? Effects-wise, then "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" was adequate. The effects worked well enough for what they were supposed to portray. But they weren't mind-blowing or overly impressive. So don't get your hopes up for these.
As for the acting, well people were doing good enough jobs with their given roles. Joel Gretch was the one who carried the movie, no doubt about it.
"Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" is a very average run-of-the-mill disaster movie that offers nothing new to the genre. You watch this movie once and never again.
Spend 1,5 hours in oblivion
patricevanes-583-95129715 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Especially the special effects for the tidal wave were one of the worst I have ever seen.
The screaming girl with the blond/pink hair needs more acting lessons! She seemed to squeak, scream and express fear at almost everything that happened in the movie and not very good at it as well. I felt like slapping her in the face and yell at her; pull it together bitch!
The silly scene where the other woman was being sucked away from the car, I was cringing in despair - I couldn't even watch how stupid this scene was unfolding!
In general a movie for when you don't want to think too much and waste your precious time you could have spend better reading a book.
The screaming girl with the blond/pink hair needs more acting lessons! She seemed to squeak, scream and express fear at almost everything that happened in the movie and not very good at it as well. I felt like slapping her in the face and yell at her; pull it together bitch!
The silly scene where the other woman was being sucked away from the car, I was cringing in despair - I couldn't even watch how stupid this scene was unfolding!
In general a movie for when you don't want to think too much and waste your precious time you could have spend better reading a book.
Not even Christopher Lloyd is enough to save it
TheLittleSongbird17 January 2015
Considering that he is the most well-known and most experienced actor in the cast by some distance you'd think he would be. Lloyd really gives his all and the eccentric kind of character is one that would have suited him perfectly. Unfortunately Lloyd's screen time is far too limited to save the movie and while he is fun in places- more than his trashy material deserved- he badly over-compensates in others, which really sticks out like a sore thumb. The best performance In Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse actually comes from Joel Gretsch, he is a commanding lead and certainly doesn't look at any time look like he's confused or in pain. And Ben Cotton is pretty endearing and makes a real effort to make Marty likable; in fact Marty is like the bright spot when it comes to the characters. Unlike the rest of the cast they actually try to act.
That's very much it for things that redeemed Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse a little. Gretsch and Cotton are good and Lloyd tries but the movie on the whole is very badly acted- Emily Holmes attempts at being frightened or emotional came over as forced, Andrea Brooks is so annoying to the extent you want to reach into the TV and slap her and Aaron Douglas doesn't even try to act as the very stereotypical and painfully forgettable villain. Everybody else looked stiff and bored. The cardboard cut-outs passing for characters are as thin as paper, with only Marty showing glimpses of colour, and the actors are further disadvantaged by a clunky script, with a number of lines so cheesy that it makes the cheesiest cheeseburger seem tasteless, that gives off the sense of parody without the humour(got a laugh out of Sophie's line about her homework but that was not in a good way). As well as a story that is filled to the brim with so many clichés(with nothing fresh done with them, characters and situations) that the intense predictability severely dilutes the suspense and fun, also the further the movie wears on the sillier and more tedious it gets.
Production values are not much better at all, in fact one of the worst things here was the special effects which were half-baked at best and laughably amateurish at worst, the disaster scenes are ruined by how cheap they look and how much unintentional humour they cause. It was abundantly clear that more effort went into the making of the promising DVD cover than to the special effects, the DVD cover at least showed some professionalism whereas the effects were borderline hack-job. The colourless and one-dimensional camera work and lacking-in-crispness editing don't fare quite as badly but they don't improve things either, while the whole movie whether in the un-thrilling disaster scenes or the heavy-handed drama suffered from some rather characterless under-directing. The sound effects have a booming sensation but not in a way that thrills, in fact some of it's headache-inducing, while the score is over-bearingly melodramatic and monotonous. Overall, Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse is nowhere near the worst SyFy has done, but aside from two performances and the efforts from Lloyd it just doesn't work. 3/10 Bethany Cox
That's very much it for things that redeemed Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse a little. Gretsch and Cotton are good and Lloyd tries but the movie on the whole is very badly acted- Emily Holmes attempts at being frightened or emotional came over as forced, Andrea Brooks is so annoying to the extent you want to reach into the TV and slap her and Aaron Douglas doesn't even try to act as the very stereotypical and painfully forgettable villain. Everybody else looked stiff and bored. The cardboard cut-outs passing for characters are as thin as paper, with only Marty showing glimpses of colour, and the actors are further disadvantaged by a clunky script, with a number of lines so cheesy that it makes the cheesiest cheeseburger seem tasteless, that gives off the sense of parody without the humour(got a laugh out of Sophie's line about her homework but that was not in a good way). As well as a story that is filled to the brim with so many clichés(with nothing fresh done with them, characters and situations) that the intense predictability severely dilutes the suspense and fun, also the further the movie wears on the sillier and more tedious it gets.
Production values are not much better at all, in fact one of the worst things here was the special effects which were half-baked at best and laughably amateurish at worst, the disaster scenes are ruined by how cheap they look and how much unintentional humour they cause. It was abundantly clear that more effort went into the making of the promising DVD cover than to the special effects, the DVD cover at least showed some professionalism whereas the effects were borderline hack-job. The colourless and one-dimensional camera work and lacking-in-crispness editing don't fare quite as badly but they don't improve things either, while the whole movie whether in the un-thrilling disaster scenes or the heavy-handed drama suffered from some rather characterless under-directing. The sound effects have a booming sensation but not in a way that thrills, in fact some of it's headache-inducing, while the score is over-bearingly melodramatic and monotonous. Overall, Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse is nowhere near the worst SyFy has done, but aside from two performances and the efforts from Lloyd it just doesn't work. 3/10 Bethany Cox
A is for Ambition....
peterbp15 March 2015
Disaster movie: The Earth is threatened by a coming apocalypse foretold by the signs of the Zodiac.. or something.
Starting with something good, the flow of the movie is good, and the cameramen avoid many of the mistakes that many other B-movies commit. The scenery of is also very pretty.
Now for the far worse: Since it's a disaster movie, it relies on special effects, as most of this stripe do. Most of these effects are poor to a degree where special effects of mediocre 80's movies are on part with them. Once I burst out laughing because it was so bad.
It's likewise clear that the movie was shot largely in the same spot, giving the impression of someone trying to do an action movie in their back garden. I addition to this, some of the transitions from one location to another are so marked, that they defy belief. Silly! The only significant plus in the grade book of this movie is that the acting performances are good. These actors' delivery is however let down by poor scriptwriting and poor directing; in several scenes the director should have done things markedly different, which would have improved both flow and feel of the movie.
What drags the movie down additionally is the lack of additional cast and stand-ins, which hampers the movie's feel SEVERELY. Its hard to believe that they went ahead and got this movie written, picked locations, filmed and fx'd up, and they didn't spend a bit more and more people in the various locations where it was shot.
I'm guessing that the production budget came from the product placement funds. Such a pity, with a bit more money thrown at it, and more attention to detail, it could have been significantly better. This is not a turkey, but had the acting been worse, it certainly would have been! Oh and lastly, MARTY! Where are we going to get 1.21 Jiggawatts??!
Starting with something good, the flow of the movie is good, and the cameramen avoid many of the mistakes that many other B-movies commit. The scenery of is also very pretty.
Now for the far worse: Since it's a disaster movie, it relies on special effects, as most of this stripe do. Most of these effects are poor to a degree where special effects of mediocre 80's movies are on part with them. Once I burst out laughing because it was so bad.
It's likewise clear that the movie was shot largely in the same spot, giving the impression of someone trying to do an action movie in their back garden. I addition to this, some of the transitions from one location to another are so marked, that they defy belief. Silly! The only significant plus in the grade book of this movie is that the acting performances are good. These actors' delivery is however let down by poor scriptwriting and poor directing; in several scenes the director should have done things markedly different, which would have improved both flow and feel of the movie.
What drags the movie down additionally is the lack of additional cast and stand-ins, which hampers the movie's feel SEVERELY. Its hard to believe that they went ahead and got this movie written, picked locations, filmed and fx'd up, and they didn't spend a bit more and more people in the various locations where it was shot.
I'm guessing that the production budget came from the product placement funds. Such a pity, with a bit more money thrown at it, and more attention to detail, it could have been significantly better. This is not a turkey, but had the acting been worse, it certainly would have been! Oh and lastly, MARTY! Where are we going to get 1.21 Jiggawatts??!
Total Cliché Fest
DearIMDB9 April 2015
Worst special effects ever and most clichés in the book. OK so its a made for TV movie but there are some standards worth adhering to like plausibility for example yes even in a fantasy. You immediately feel sorry for Neil Martin (Joel Gretsch) that he's the father of the dumbest most self satisfied... (My University professor dad is so stupid) ...half wit in the land. A boy, Colin Martin (Reilly Dolman) with so little intuition or empathy, not to mention an annoying smirk of self satisfaction that right the first moment you are hoping he gets struck by lightening. Also this thing of the characters watching as a disaster rolls towards them when you are screaming "Run, run you dumb... 'chappie, fellows...' (you know what I mean)" is so insulting to the intelligence. Yes I can understand people freezing and dying on the spot but not almost dying because they are just too dumb to move, especially as one is a professor, "Ooh look Cleetus, duh there's a big bolder coming down from duh sky and its going to hit us if we don't duh move!" The boy rubbishes the father's every theory and suggestion. He needs a good slap!. This kid was serving coffee from a stall at the beginning of the movie with no apparent understanding of science. "Plausibility?" You'd think that the father would have had a smarter son, unless of course he was doing booze and smoking grass in his younger child creating days or at least mom was. Meanwhile they've acquired a girl called Sophie (Andrea Brooks) also a scientist... kind of, and during a chase scene, between her and the boy, they run through a gamut of hysterical physical emotions that would take most movies two hours to justify. Anyway the plot rumbles on using every cliché in the book, narrow escapes, implausibly long fights and a member of the CIA in a helicopter so small he could only just fit next to the pilot. The CIA running out of cash? Perhaps the production company was. Just what Christopher Lloyd is doing in this movie is anybody's guess, still I did enjoy his ten minutes (or thereabouts). My favourite scene in the whole thing is the very last scene, the tying up of loose ends where Joel Gretsch makes a speech to camera meanwhile behind him, his son and the girl who have shown virtually no interest in each other, suddenly make meaningful eye contact - if you know what I mean - and go into an immediate embrace behind him thrusting their tongues down each other's throats. THAT had me rolling in the aisles. Truth be told, it was a lousy script and a tight budget that did for this movie..... in my opinion.
Don't watch it
sarbaso13 January 2015
If you prefer to watch a popcorn movie where you can plug off your brain than just give it a try.
After i watched it i ask my self why i spend the time of my life for this movie ?
I like Science Fiction Movies and the topic Niburu in General.
The Movie is very scripted and the Watcher will not be surprised very well.
Only the Actor Joel Gretsch plays his role very well.
I liked Aaron Douglas in his Role in Battlestar Galactica, but in this movie its the worst acting that i have see from him.
Spend your time on a other movie.
After i watched it i ask my self why i spend the time of my life for this movie ?
I like Science Fiction Movies and the topic Niburu in General.
The Movie is very scripted and the Watcher will not be surprised very well.
Only the Actor Joel Gretsch plays his role very well.
I liked Aaron Douglas in his Role in Battlestar Galactica, but in this movie its the worst acting that i have see from him.
Spend your time on a other movie.
Should be called: DISASTER! - Signs of the coming poo storm
clarkmick3318 February 2015
Watched this movie while on my exercise bike and I am not sure what was more painful - my burning thighs or my burning eyes. Signs of why it should be called DISASTER! - Signs of the coming poo storm
1. The whole movie looks like it was shot in rural Canada - you want me to believe you are in Peru try not have Canadian Pine trees in the scene behind you.
2. The graphics were rendered by Community College students.
3.The actors and actresses all play typical one dimensional characters. Teenage soon - aggressive hates his Dad, Dad loves his son but can't communicate to him.
4. Roping in Christopher Lioyd to play none other than a scientist - and a drunk one at that! I reckon he was really drunk for the roll once he realized what a crap movie he was on. Oh the things we do to pay the bills dear Christoper.
5. Plot holes filled with poo
6. The so called Dept of Defense unit act as though they are managing an order at McDonalds.
7. Car out runs a tsunami!!!!!
8 The Dept of Defense leader goes in ALONE!? in the final showdown and tells the heli piolt to f off like he is some badass then he proceeds to fight like a school kid. While the main lead scientist who is suppose to be a big nerd seems to fight like he was a pro wrestler when the time comes for it.
9. Most "events" involve using giant fans to blow lots of dirt around - waiting for when poo would hit the fan. Tornado can suck up a woman but cant lift a truck or anything around them..
10. Syfy channel funding.
I can see the ambition but its better to pool some more money to make a better movie (please spend more money on FX) than produce little poo storms :-)
There is a scene where they threw in a saying from Back to the Future "Great Scott" Dr Emmitt Brown says this on the classic "Back to the Future"I think the actors all knew this was one big joke of a movie and where to busy trying to impress Christopher Lloyd than worry about the poo storm of a movie they were on.
1. The whole movie looks like it was shot in rural Canada - you want me to believe you are in Peru try not have Canadian Pine trees in the scene behind you.
2. The graphics were rendered by Community College students.
3.The actors and actresses all play typical one dimensional characters. Teenage soon - aggressive hates his Dad, Dad loves his son but can't communicate to him.
4. Roping in Christopher Lioyd to play none other than a scientist - and a drunk one at that! I reckon he was really drunk for the roll once he realized what a crap movie he was on. Oh the things we do to pay the bills dear Christoper.
5. Plot holes filled with poo
6. The so called Dept of Defense unit act as though they are managing an order at McDonalds.
7. Car out runs a tsunami!!!!!
8 The Dept of Defense leader goes in ALONE!? in the final showdown and tells the heli piolt to f off like he is some badass then he proceeds to fight like a school kid. While the main lead scientist who is suppose to be a big nerd seems to fight like he was a pro wrestler when the time comes for it.
9. Most "events" involve using giant fans to blow lots of dirt around - waiting for when poo would hit the fan. Tornado can suck up a woman but cant lift a truck or anything around them..
10. Syfy channel funding.
I can see the ambition but its better to pool some more money to make a better movie (please spend more money on FX) than produce little poo storms :-)
There is a scene where they threw in a saying from Back to the Future "Great Scott" Dr Emmitt Brown says this on the classic "Back to the Future"I think the actors all knew this was one big joke of a movie and where to busy trying to impress Christopher Lloyd than worry about the poo storm of a movie they were on.
This movie gave me cancer.
ketillidahl8 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Me and my girlfriend got to talking about Nicolas Cage this evening and decided to find the crappiest movie we could based on star ratings from IMDb in recent time without him in it, and then watch it for some reason. This one met all the requirements. Thanks guys.
Watching this movie made me wonder if crap-movies is a genre, because it seems like the people who make these films really try. We even watched the credits, which listed a surprising amount of people being involved in the making of this one, like the the three chefs they had on set, and the guy driving some heavy equipment. Not surprisingly was the fact that the movie only had one melody, the one from all the shows on the history channel which is scientifically proved to make anything exiting.
Oh, and he did NOT say "Great Scott" just there, he just did not do that....and that make-out scene at the end with the dad looking like he was in a bit of a "rapy" mood followed by sudden credits...all gold.
Thanks Obama :)
Watching this movie made me wonder if crap-movies is a genre, because it seems like the people who make these films really try. We even watched the credits, which listed a surprising amount of people being involved in the making of this one, like the the three chefs they had on set, and the guy driving some heavy equipment. Not surprisingly was the fact that the movie only had one melody, the one from all the shows on the history channel which is scientifically proved to make anything exiting.
Oh, and he did NOT say "Great Scott" just there, he just did not do that....and that make-out scene at the end with the dad looking like he was in a bit of a "rapy" mood followed by sudden credits...all gold.
Thanks Obama :)
The zodiac catastrophe
Prismark1017 April 2015
Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse is another of these SyFy funded disaster films. A mysterious artifact is discovered in Peru that triggers global catastrophes around the world which could destroy civilization.
A rogue scientist attempts to decipher the symbols on the artifact in an attempt to unlock its secrets which is linked to signs of the zodiac and hopefully save the world from destruction.
Like many of these films, its full of cheapo effects and a bad script and not so great acting. It only comes alive when Christopher Lloyd turns up and he is not in it for long, unfortunately for the movie.
Its just a run of the mill disaster film for SyFy without any wit or campy fun.
A rogue scientist attempts to decipher the symbols on the artifact in an attempt to unlock its secrets which is linked to signs of the zodiac and hopefully save the world from destruction.
Like many of these films, its full of cheapo effects and a bad script and not so great acting. It only comes alive when Christopher Lloyd turns up and he is not in it for long, unfortunately for the movie.
Its just a run of the mill disaster film for SyFy without any wit or campy fun.
So not-bad, it's good!
baruch-253-89554811 January 2015
This film is actually brilliant in a rather odd way. It is a great example of what a home made low budget film can be. The story isn't half bad as apocalyptic dramas go, and it is chock full of familiar faces from numerous great sci-fi shows. The writing is exactly what you would expect, slightly stilted dramatic over-the-top. What really works, though, is that, because of the low budget, it is shot almost all on location, and much of the plot is explored through inference and implication, so there is some intelligence involved. Moderate use of pretty good special effects helps to ground the story. This is not a fancy franchise flick, nor is it particularly great in terms of it's originality or message, but all in all, somehow it works.
Disappointed
Vampirekiwi2516 January 2015
The whole plot to this movie was well thought out and rather interesting, even though it was predictable... In short the story was intriguing but the graphics were disappointing. I have seen older movies with better graphics, if they had just spent more time on making it a bit more realistic it would have been more enjoyable. Most of the effects looked plastic. But for the acting, it was impressive for a homemade movie, especially since they didn't use the most attractive actors for main characters. Gives it a bit more of a realistic view cause to me, movies like that make it seem like only the perfect people get to be the main characters.
In short: Story was wonderful. Acting was good. And the graphics were disappointing.
In short: Story was wonderful. Acting was good. And the graphics were disappointing.
The worst special effects I've ever seen
lopezpatricia-0613914 August 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I've never seen such bad cgi. It was like a cartoon drawn onto the film afterwards. The story is stupid and all over the place. Basically this stone is found at the same time Planet X turns up on the radar. And all of these zodiac signs appear in the disasters. Fuming as I expect any sci fi film to have the roots of the story based on a little science fact.
special effects ran out of money :D
eric-buchtmann19 January 2015
Did anyone notice that while being chased by a helicopter, their Ford Flex changed into a Chevy Tahoe while turning off the road? It's about one hour and 14 minutes into the movie.
The movie was OK, if I paid to watch it in the theater I was have been really upset.
But if they wanted to make the movie epic (and a lawsuit), they should have had the DeLorean leaving Christopher Lloyd's home... that would have made the same quality chase scene like in "Back to the Future".
The stone in the movie should have been called the Tesseract. Thet totally stole the CG from "The Avengers". I thought it was a funny movie that was like watching the movie "Sharknado". I really enjoyed how a storm had rain falling heavy yet still seemed to microwave everything but people below it.
I think if you're into cheesy sy-fy movies, this is eight up your alley. They last death in the movie was great, it's like my public speaking teacher said, close strong and that's what people will remember :)
The movie was OK, if I paid to watch it in the theater I was have been really upset.
But if they wanted to make the movie epic (and a lawsuit), they should have had the DeLorean leaving Christopher Lloyd's home... that would have made the same quality chase scene like in "Back to the Future".
The stone in the movie should have been called the Tesseract. Thet totally stole the CG from "The Avengers". I thought it was a funny movie that was like watching the movie "Sharknado". I really enjoyed how a storm had rain falling heavy yet still seemed to microwave everything but people below it.
I think if you're into cheesy sy-fy movies, this is eight up your alley. They last death in the movie was great, it's like my public speaking teacher said, close strong and that's what people will remember :)
A Diversion
hilary_mae-912-8056127 March 2017
Not a bad film if you just want to relax and zone out. It's simplistic and predictable, but fine to watch. Effects are low budget, so you have to look past them. Overall, accept it for what it is. The only really negative thing I have to say about it is how much of a whiny wimp they made the son. 20 years old and no gumption; just ongoing whining.
The main protagonist carries the film, but he's supposed to when you know that the govt baddies haven't got a full brain cell between them.
The main protagonist carries the film, but he's supposed to when you know that the govt baddies haven't got a full brain cell between them.
This was bad, very bad
ScottM275318 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The only reason I watched this to begin with was because of some of the actors in it.
Christopher Lloyd; Joel Gretsch - The 4400; Aaron Douglas - BSG; Ben Cotton - BSG: Blood & Chrome
I'm sorry I did now. This film had plot holes completely out of control! Many so glaring that they make this film hard to even watch. For instance, one in which they are going to retrieve some parts of the Iraqi tablets that had been sold to Christopher Lloyd which the female scientist found the address online as being "only about 90 miles away. So they hop in Ben Cotton's vehicle, drive for a matter of minutes, yet ANOTHER catastrophe hits in the form of a gigantic (and very fake looking) tornado in which they crash the vehicle. The female scientist is swept away and the survivors walk for a short period of time and bam! They made it most of the 90 miles on FOOT! Wow! They must have been speed-walking!
Another ridiculous part of the movie is the el-cheapo rental helicopter that the evil DOD agent played by Aaron Douglas chases them around with... It looked like a Robinson R22, which is DEFINITELY not what the government would be using. They would have swamped the area looking for the "fugitives" with blackhawks and the like.
All in all, it's a terrible movie, with terrible writing that not even veteran actors could make any better. My advice... stay away from this one!
Christopher Lloyd; Joel Gretsch - The 4400; Aaron Douglas - BSG; Ben Cotton - BSG: Blood & Chrome
I'm sorry I did now. This film had plot holes completely out of control! Many so glaring that they make this film hard to even watch. For instance, one in which they are going to retrieve some parts of the Iraqi tablets that had been sold to Christopher Lloyd which the female scientist found the address online as being "only about 90 miles away. So they hop in Ben Cotton's vehicle, drive for a matter of minutes, yet ANOTHER catastrophe hits in the form of a gigantic (and very fake looking) tornado in which they crash the vehicle. The female scientist is swept away and the survivors walk for a short period of time and bam! They made it most of the 90 miles on FOOT! Wow! They must have been speed-walking!
Another ridiculous part of the movie is the el-cheapo rental helicopter that the evil DOD agent played by Aaron Douglas chases them around with... It looked like a Robinson R22, which is DEFINITELY not what the government would be using. They would have swamped the area looking for the "fugitives" with blackhawks and the like.
All in all, it's a terrible movie, with terrible writing that not even veteran actors could make any better. My advice... stay away from this one!
Horrible!
ylimabr4 February 2015
For those who like movies "science fiction" or conspiracies movies, the film seems to be excellent. By the time you decide watch. It was the biggest waste of time in my life.
In 2014 (time the film was released), the visual effects looks like plastic, as if the film had been done in a hurry, is horrible!
The atmosphere is so "funny", the film is so compressed (I'm sure it would take more than 1h30 and had to be edited to maximum) the scenes do not seems to make sense. Not to mention that all events occur with the characters. We do not feel emotion. And after several deaths, one can only feel shaken by the death of a person? Nothing makes sense!
If you want to waste your time, I recommend you to watch. it is just that: a very great loss of time.
In 2014 (time the film was released), the visual effects looks like plastic, as if the film had been done in a hurry, is horrible!
The atmosphere is so "funny", the film is so compressed (I'm sure it would take more than 1h30 and had to be edited to maximum) the scenes do not seems to make sense. Not to mention that all events occur with the characters. We do not feel emotion. And after several deaths, one can only feel shaken by the death of a person? Nothing makes sense!
If you want to waste your time, I recommend you to watch. it is just that: a very great loss of time.
No different from a dozen others
Leofwine_draca10 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
ZODIAC: SIGNS OF THE APOCALYPSE is another in an endless wave of science fiction disaster movies in which the Earth is threatened by various natural disasters and super storms. This one attempts to tie the traditional disaster material in with more esoteric material, namely each of the mini-disasters being tied in to one of the 12 signs of the zodiac. There's also some mumbo-jumbo about Mayan prophecies and the like.
In all other respects this is very much business as usual and as a result not very interesting. The cast members go through the motions throughout and deliver dialogue written by someone with a tin ear. The only face of interest is good old Christopher Lloyd but his role amounts to little more than a cameo. Otherwise it's the usual gamut of cheesy CGI effects, melodrama, and nonsense.
In all other respects this is very much business as usual and as a result not very interesting. The cast members go through the motions throughout and deliver dialogue written by someone with a tin ear. The only face of interest is good old Christopher Lloyd but his role amounts to little more than a cameo. Otherwise it's the usual gamut of cheesy CGI effects, melodrama, and nonsense.
So juvenile you'll be astonished
stoat_fur25 January 2015
Easily one of the worst films I've ever seen. It starts you out absolutely hating all of the characters because the acting is so poor, the characters are all familiar, cookie-cutter ones we've all seen before and their dialogue is predictable, uninspired and rehashed from so many other apocalypse films you've seen again and again. The writing is so very poor that it makes the viewer sad that someone else was paid huge volumes of money for the script when anyone sitting in the theater could probably have done a far better job.
There was no discernible point in making this film from an artistic standpoint because no new ground is covered and no remotely plausible concepts or themes are explored. Entirely ludicrous situations are the norm, where any child would be screaming at the screen 'don't do that you idiot!'. This will insult your intelligence and make you weep, not for the future of mankind but for the demise of any semblance of creativity and innovation coming out of Hollywood.
I love apocalypse, end-of-days, sci-fi, all that stuff, but was thoroughly annoyed by this waste of electricity. Don't waste your time; pick a different film to see.
There was no discernible point in making this film from an artistic standpoint because no new ground is covered and no remotely plausible concepts or themes are explored. Entirely ludicrous situations are the norm, where any child would be screaming at the screen 'don't do that you idiot!'. This will insult your intelligence and make you weep, not for the future of mankind but for the demise of any semblance of creativity and innovation coming out of Hollywood.
I love apocalypse, end-of-days, sci-fi, all that stuff, but was thoroughly annoyed by this waste of electricity. Don't waste your time; pick a different film to see.
If you only see one disaster movie this year - choose something else.
TheNovemberMan14 January 2015
It is difficult to tell what is the worst thing about this movie. The acting, CGI and script are all shocking. It was so bad that I created my IMDb account for the sole purpose of reviewing this movie and as soon as I'm through, I'm going to watch the last 15 minutes of it that remains. That's right - I'm reviewing an incomplete movie.
There is a scene very early in the movie where explosions take place in the sky and people are sitting down in the grass watching with interest, instead of running for cover. Obviously, covering your face with your hands is as good a method as any other when your life is in danger.
No spoilers from me - the film-makers did that already. Suffice it to say that this movie is so very bad that I couldn't keep myself away. Not even gratuitous nudity would help it - and that says it all, I think. Two stars for being so bad that I have to see how it ends.
There is a scene very early in the movie where explosions take place in the sky and people are sitting down in the grass watching with interest, instead of running for cover. Obviously, covering your face with your hands is as good a method as any other when your life is in danger.
No spoilers from me - the film-makers did that already. Suffice it to say that this movie is so very bad that I couldn't keep myself away. Not even gratuitous nudity would help it - and that says it all, I think. Two stars for being so bad that I have to see how it ends.
Was a good idea but very poorly executed.
georginaaprince4 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Was excited to see it when I read the preview but it was so baddd. The film is meant to be about the zodiacs being the reason for the world ending so with this in mind I thought the disasters would go in order. This was totally not the case. He somehow predicted the next one but it jumped from Leo to Scorpio to Aries to Libra. There was no order at all
Way too serious to be looked at as a fun escapist disaster film
ersinkdotcom22 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
It's hard to do anything new when you're making a disaster film these days. That means the effects better be good and the calamities happening on screen should be of epic proportions. When putting together a B or C-type movie in the genre, it needs to be as ridiculous and humorous as can be (think "Sharknado"). SyFy Channel and Anchor Bay's newest offering, "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse," doesn't meet either of these criteria.
When a primitive astrology carving is unearthed in Peru, it triggers explosive meteor storms around the world. But this is only the beginning: Tsunamis, lightning storms, lava geysers, and giant waterspouts erupt globally, each disaster corresponding to a specific sign of the zodiac. Will a mysterious government agency now kill to hide a shocking planetary secret, or can a group of rogue scientists race against time and carnage to activate an ancient civilization's Armageddon machine?
"Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" takes itself way too serious to be looked at as a fun escapist disaster film. There's no giant piranha or wacky hipsters to add a level of fun to the events transpiring on screen. All we get is a group of somber scientists running around while trying to keep from getting wiped out by CG walls of water and raining meteorites.
The special effects make it hard to fully immerse yourself in "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse." They look even worse than the typical Asylum films and that's bad. Sometimes, bad effects can work when they're meant to be funny. The filmmakers made "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" way too solemn for that to be the case.
The typical mix of genre actors that help lure fans in star in "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse." Aaron Douglas from "Battlestar Galactica" plays a government agent. I did snicker when he used the word "frakkin'" as a tribute to his character on the epic sci-fi series. Christopher Lloyd plays an eccentric inventor (sound familiar?) who gets about five minutes of screen time before being killed off. Upon experiencing one of Lloyd's inventions in the movie, a character wittily exclaims, "Great Scott!" These precious moments made my viewing experience at least partially tolerable.
"Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" is unrated because it premiered on the SyFy Channel. The movie is tame and relatively family-friendly. There's some violence, profanity, and frightening and intense sequences. It never gets too graphic or gory and I would recommend it for anyone 12 or over who know the difference between real life and make believe.
Some religious folks might be put off by the movie being based on the Zodiac signs. They're never referred to in the astrological sense. The actual shapes of the symbols and their order are used to pinpoint the different disasters coming next. A couple of the characters insinuate their agnostic or atheistic views as well.
Most sci-fi enthusiasts will find "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" to be a waste of their precious time. It would be better spent re- watching "2012" or "Armageddon." As far as SyFy films are concerned, they've made better and wittier ones in the past. "End of the World" comes to mind immediately.
When a primitive astrology carving is unearthed in Peru, it triggers explosive meteor storms around the world. But this is only the beginning: Tsunamis, lightning storms, lava geysers, and giant waterspouts erupt globally, each disaster corresponding to a specific sign of the zodiac. Will a mysterious government agency now kill to hide a shocking planetary secret, or can a group of rogue scientists race against time and carnage to activate an ancient civilization's Armageddon machine?
"Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" takes itself way too serious to be looked at as a fun escapist disaster film. There's no giant piranha or wacky hipsters to add a level of fun to the events transpiring on screen. All we get is a group of somber scientists running around while trying to keep from getting wiped out by CG walls of water and raining meteorites.
The special effects make it hard to fully immerse yourself in "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse." They look even worse than the typical Asylum films and that's bad. Sometimes, bad effects can work when they're meant to be funny. The filmmakers made "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" way too solemn for that to be the case.
The typical mix of genre actors that help lure fans in star in "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse." Aaron Douglas from "Battlestar Galactica" plays a government agent. I did snicker when he used the word "frakkin'" as a tribute to his character on the epic sci-fi series. Christopher Lloyd plays an eccentric inventor (sound familiar?) who gets about five minutes of screen time before being killed off. Upon experiencing one of Lloyd's inventions in the movie, a character wittily exclaims, "Great Scott!" These precious moments made my viewing experience at least partially tolerable.
"Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" is unrated because it premiered on the SyFy Channel. The movie is tame and relatively family-friendly. There's some violence, profanity, and frightening and intense sequences. It never gets too graphic or gory and I would recommend it for anyone 12 or over who know the difference between real life and make believe.
Some religious folks might be put off by the movie being based on the Zodiac signs. They're never referred to in the astrological sense. The actual shapes of the symbols and their order are used to pinpoint the different disasters coming next. A couple of the characters insinuate their agnostic or atheistic views as well.
Most sci-fi enthusiasts will find "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" to be a waste of their precious time. It would be better spent re- watching "2012" or "Armageddon." As far as SyFy films are concerned, they've made better and wittier ones in the past. "End of the World" comes to mind immediately.
Bad even for a made for TV movie
subseb23 January 2015
So many other things you could do with your time rather than watch this movie.
Maybe contact someone you've been meaning to but never seems to find the time. Do that chore you've been putting off. Or even watch something else.
Sorry to say that this is a terrible movie, the plots is weak, the special effects are especially poor, and the movie makes no sense whatsoever.
Really can't state this enough but do something else rather than watch this!
Maybe contact someone you've been meaning to but never seems to find the time. Do that chore you've been putting off. Or even watch something else.
Sorry to say that this is a terrible movie, the plots is weak, the special effects are especially poor, and the movie makes no sense whatsoever.
Really can't state this enough but do something else rather than watch this!
Why bother criticising?
dickyadams21 December 2023
I've been a professor, chair, director & partner. Yet I had a phase of reading & enjoying Mills & Boon books and I enjoyed doing so. Watching Apocalypse Tomorrow (Sky Sci-fi) just now, it's fair to say there's a whole genre of TV movie that is as beyond criticism as Mills & Boon is. This film and others like it are the scifi equivalent of Mills & Boon. Formulaic, cheap, predictable, knocked out as a script over a latte at Starbucks. Yet why not? There's room for low art like this.
Criticising these films is as pointless as criticising Mills and Boon as literature. Pretty girls and guys, heroes and villains, mcguffins aplenty and cameos for one vaguely recognisable scifi genre face. Added to the often preposterous plot (one man links the zodiac to world ending events and only he sees it) these films are just the TV equivalent of.fast food. Enjoy the burger and move on.
Criticising these films is as pointless as criticising Mills and Boon as literature. Pretty girls and guys, heroes and villains, mcguffins aplenty and cameos for one vaguely recognisable scifi genre face. Added to the often preposterous plot (one man links the zodiac to world ending events and only he sees it) these films are just the TV equivalent of.fast food. Enjoy the burger and move on.
STORY SO-SO, MOVIE A WASTE OF TIME
vanderzivkovic30 March 2021
Story was interesting, but horribly executed. A zodiac wheel in a peruvian cave, but you dont see anything about Peru. Where are those old 1970/80 movies when actors fly to a country, mix with new culture and then the action starts? Here you dont know when are they in Peru or US or anywhere else. The fake scenes of erupting volcanoes and other cataclismic evens are just terrible. And then the 20-something yrs old son of the scientist, a horrible actor.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
