10.5: Apocalypse (2006) User Reviews

The Monkeys Must Not Be Done

[geo8x6 · 3/10 · 20 May 2006]

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.

Not even remotely scientifically accurate, but a decent way to spend a rainy day

[angela3511-1 · 4/10 · 17 September 2018]

This movie is not even remotely scientifically accurate. I'm pretty sure the writers haven't even passed basic high school earth science nor ever watched a PBS documentary on earthquakes to have gotten pretty much everything wrong. There are also many, many moments that were beyond even basic common sense, and I was yelling at my TV. The acting was pretty decent, and the actors were gorgeous and/or stately. Some of the lines were pure cheese, however. However, it's far from being the worse disaster movie or mini-series that I've ever seen, and it was a decent enough way to send a few hours on a rainy day. Don't expect to learn anything about a) science, b) surviving a disaster, or c) health care, and take it for what it is: escapist fantasy.

Even the camera work was corny!!!!

[beowulf_cam · 3/10 · 29 September 2008]

This film was one of the most corny, clichéd and hackneyed films I have ever seen. Even the camera work was corny - for dramatic scenes they continuously zoomed in and out on faces like a parody. The problem was, they were serious. The director responsible for those corny zooms should be exiled somewhere far, far away.

The science was absolutely awful. The concept that anything man-made could influence a tectonic event was unbelievable. I won't even mention that fact that events usually taking millions of years could suddenly occur within days! To have a fault open from Hudson's Bay to the Gulf of Mexico not only displays a total ignorance of science but strains incredulity beyond the breaking point.

The dramatic scenes were actually embarrassing to watch. I have seen people witness real disasters who didn't react as badly as the actors in this film. Beau Bridges should be ashamed for appearing in this film. I could go on, but suffice to say that all those involved in this films should be drummed out of SAG, DGA, DGC, ACTRA and any other film related association! But that is just my humble opinion.

Thank you.

Given the absolutely idiotic plot line(s) and lack of any...

[innocuous · 2/10 · 21 May 2006]

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.

What is wrong with director John (Zoom Zoom) Lafia?

[terrencecmay · 1/10 · 24 May 2006]

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!

Zoom Zoom Zoom

[Cru3 · 1/10 · 21 May 2006]

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.

Langella, visual effects and rescues almost make this worth seeing

[vchimpanzee · 23 May 2006]

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.

10.5 rates a minus 1

[lani4 · 1/10 · 24 May 2006]

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.

Yuck!!! Save us from the 2nd Half!!!

[robbiesmith79 · 1/10 · 22 May 2006]

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.

Better than the original...

[hughie522 · 6/10 · 17 November 2006]

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.

What a lousy movie

[biluhr · 2/10 · 23 May 2006]

The zooming in this movie was horrible. Could barely watch the thing. And the movie was too dramatic. I mean, the one girl found out she was pregnant that morning and was having hot flash's and holding her belly that afternoon. The two brothers always argued, fought, and made up within 3 minutes, the ladder scene where the dancer fell was so "amusment park" like it was hard to watch. My 11 year old daughter was laughing at the ridiculous effects. Looked like a ride at Disney. The director should be smacked for the use of that zoom thing. And the timeline was so far off it was painful. How did Young Dr. Hill get from Colorado to south dakota and back in like an hour. Is a 6+ hour flight in a helicopter. I know its Hollywood, but you have to keep a sense of timeline in a movie and this one was way off. And, that zoom thing really was hard to watch. Smack the director for that one. I would say don't waste your time on this movie. NBC would be making a mistake to show an encore presentation of this movie. It sucked

Apocalypse Earthquake

[FloatingOpera7 · 10/10 · 24 May 2006]

10.5: Apocalypse (2006): Starring Beau Bridges, Frank Langella, Kim Delaney, Dean Cain, Oliver Hudson, David Cubitt, Carly Pope, Tyrone Benskin, Melissa Sue Anderson, Glenda Berganza, Jon Cassini, Anna Jager, Megan Rath, Maurizio Terazzano, Sean Tucker, Brandon Blue...Director John Lafia, Screenplay Jon Lafia This was a two-part made-for-TV disaster pic, which aired Sunday, May 21 and wrapped up on Tuesday, May 23rd on NBC. While many viewers normally dislike and bash these "over-the-top, O MY GOD WHAT DO WE DO" type of disaster movies, it is America's guilty pleasure and it's still an enjoyable thriller. NBC and CBS have both seen their share of overly dramatic disaster films (Locusts, Spring Break Shark Attack, Bats, the first Earthquake one which was like 8.6 or something, etc). This film is the sequel to "10.5", which aired on NBC in 2004 in which a large-scale earthquake on the San Andreas fault finally turns California into an island. This film picks up where that one left of. President Paul Hollister (Beau Bridges) is informed by earthquake specialists and geologists that another devastating earthquake will hit the Mid-West and dramatically alter the geography of the United States, splitting it in half. Bridges is not doing anything particularly outstanding as far as serious acting and he knows it, but he is convincing as a worried President, and one who is more fatherly and humane instead of overtly political or self-interested. He looks damn good as the President and I totally buy him as the Commander-In-Chief. His wife (Kim Delaney) has a bit of the Hilary Clinton, strong First Lady thing going on and she has great chemistry with Bridges. Their daughter is actively involved in the rescue aid groups, FEMA among them. Sexy heartthrob actor Dean Cain (Las Vegas, Lois and Clark) is superb as firefighter Brad, who is engaged in a sibling rivalry with brother Will, also a firefighter (Oliver Hudson). Will resents that Brad gets all the attention and is considered a hero. Both Cain and Hudson deliver fine performances, even if it's the made-for-TV kind, and when Cain dies ultimately to save the life of a injured earthquake victim, it is genuinely moving, especially when Will finally accepts his brother as a hero and puts away his ego. Dean Cain proves his own versatility by taking on an action role and he seems to fit into this disaster genre so well one wonders why he wasn't cast in such films as "Deep Impact", "The Day After Tomorrow" or at least "Ladder 49" . Frank Langella, a veteran British actor, portrays Dr. Hill, an expert on earthquake activities. Bash this film all you want because despite its astounding and unbelievable premise, it is powerful and emotional. The production values are high and the special effects, made with the latest computer generated images, look so real that one almost believes it can become a reality. In a latter scene, as the earthquake cuts a dividing line between Western and Eastern United States, a Hispanic couple display affection "I love you" as they die together. Very moving. Humanity attempts to save itself, risking their lives for others and hoping to stop this Juggernaut and we are totally absorbed in the struggle. It is much like "The Day After Tomorrow" (2004). With global warming still a threat, and with the intelligently argued theory that earthquakes can indeed destroy the geographical surface of a continent (like during the Ice Ages and dinosaur days) is wholly possible and many scientists consider this to be a future threat for the earth. The cinematography is stunning. Filmed in Arizona, Las Vegas and the Mid-West, you are at the edge of your seat as you watch the Hoover Dam burst and overflood and Las Vegas fall to pieces. This earthquake scared the heck out of me and let's pray it never happens, because truly, our own earth may well be our worst enemy. Despite the many negative comments and the animosity toward director Lafia's technique, this is a good movie in the end. Why ? It's not meant to cater to audiences who enjoy big-screen disaster pics. It is meant to be appreciated in your own home. I certainly did.

Not that Bad

[ktrommler · 6/10 · 24 May 2006]

Actually, I think the special effects were done fairly well, considering the scope of what they were trying to portray.

I mean it wasn't of Star Wars caliber, but it was entertaining, and most frightening.

As with most TV disaster movies you are limited to the extent you are able to take the special effects.

I felt the actors portrayed to the best of their ability the feelings that one might encounter, if facing this type of terrible disaster.

After what happened in real life to New Orleans and other southern states, and what they face each year from Hurricanes and Tornadeos alone, nothing is beyond the realm of possibility.

Haven't seen it? DON'T BOTHER.

[LadyCatherine · 1/10 · 21 May 2006]

1. To call the acting sophomoric would be an insult to every sophomore out there. It's bad. Truly, unbelievably bad. Stilted. Forced. Wooden. (Dorothy Parker would revise her Hepburn comment here; many of the performers can't even run the gamut of emotions from A to B. As I've called some political commentators, "a one note symphony.") 2. I'm sure the reason for the in-out-in-out-up-down-left-right-left-right camera swings are to create a feeling of i*n*t*e*n*s*i*t*y and d*r*a*m*a. All they have done for me is create a feeling of m*o*t*i*o*n s*i*c*k*n*e*s*s. Once or twice might make for drama. Continual swings become tedious, at best. (I want the name of the lame brain that came up with this idiotic maneuver. I plan to send him or her a bill for my migraine meds.) 3. Since it's pathetically obvious that nobody on the writing staff took (let alone, passed) Basic Geology--could they have at *least* watched a half dozen National Geographic specials??? Willing suspension of disbelief is one thing; this is a whole different animal. ("Volcano" managed to keep people suckered in for a couple of hours--of course, it had the advantage of having a few people who could act.)

The best thing you can say about this waste of film is... it's a sequel that's just as good as the original from whence it sprang: LOUSY.

(And here we thought "Reunite Pangea!" was just a kicky t-shirt. Sheesh.)

The Script

[dip24 · 2/10 · 14 June 2009]

I won't belabor the same things that others have said (eg, the headache-inducing zooming, the stiff dialog, the poor special effects, the grade 2 science, etc.) Instead, I want to talk about the unrealistic way most people reacted in this move. Remember 9/11? The country stood still for weeks watching the event on TV. But in this movie entire cities (or states?) are destroyed and most people in the rest of the country act oblivious, still going about their normal lives, like the people in Las Vegas. Or how about the earthquake expert who is on the phone with his daughter and says, "I think we're about to have a big earthquake here in Las Vegas in a few seconds" then calmly gets on an elevator(!) while the tremors are going on around him. (Wouldn't he pull the fire alarm? Or take the stairs? Apparently nobody thought of fire alarms in this movie. Or fires.) Or how about the helicopter pilot who is watching the water spill over the top of Hoover Dam and then decides to get a great picture by flying 50 feet below(!) the peak of the dam. (Even flying 200 feet above the dam would be fatal because when the dam breaks the air currents might sink the copter.) In summary, my main gripe is the totally unrealistic human reactions in this movie. Which, I guess, you could blame on the script writer.

Total Junk.

[dalbrech · 1/10 · 22 May 2006]

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.

Watch only with land-legs.

[khenders_98 · 2/10 · 23 May 2006]

I totally agree with the other commentators on this movie. The director used the Zoom lever on the camera WAY TOO MUCH! I don't think there is a single scene in which there is no zooming without a purpose. The zooming was so intense and persistent that it made my head spin. The other thing I found totally annoying was that there was just as much, if not more, commercial time than movie time.

I like sci-fi movies, so I turned in for the second half, but wow. Last time I checked, it takes time to decode, process, and display data on a computer screen. This movie seems imply that satellite data on multiple layers are viewable immediately after the event happens.

I simply can't wait for MST3K to get ahold of this one.

warning to cancer patients w/ seizures

[jdgtmp01 · 1/10 · 4 October 2008]

I don't know if anything here is a spoiler or not, but I'll include the warning...just to be safe. But first, a different type of warning...a WARNING TO THOSE WHO MAY BE SUBJECT TO SEIZURES: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. (Sorry for the shouting.) The horrific camera work (the zoom lens on the camera was apparently stuck in an in/out/in/out/... mode, and they apparently didn't have the budget for another camera) is so bad that I've had to turn the TV off...I didn't get that warning feeling, but the headache was so bad I could easily imagine it being next...and this movie is NOT worth a Grand Mal seizure...trust me!

Also, I only rated this a "1" out of 10 because there isn't a "0".

Possible spoiler here....

Wasn't Dr. Hill's (Kim Delaney) father mentioned as being DEAD in the original 10.5? Or am I thinking of another movie?

Pretty looks, bad product

[AvdW · 4/10 · 27 September 2008]

I always watch disaster movies, but 9 out of 10 they turn out to be disasters themselves. This movie was no exception to that rule. The story is simple (as it should be): Mother Earth shows her wrath and has no mercy doing it. The president of the US (who else, as no other country seems to be affected — Hawaii being the US) takes charge and assembles a team of experts to tell what is going on and provide a solution to the problem. No complaints from me there. But why oh why does the daughter of the president have to happen to assist the doctor who treats the wife of the FEMA rescuer who saves his own wife who happens to be in the same building as the father of the scientist in charge who happens to be the discredited geologist who happens to have the 'solution' (no spoiler intended), all supervised by the daughter of the FEMA director who happens to be in direct contact with the president (to come full circle)? To cut it short: suspension of disbelieve is not something thought about thoroughly by the filmmakers.

But that's story wise; in a disaster movie you expect disaster to take place, and indeed is does. The special effects and computer graphics are good (for a TV movie at least). No cardboard boxes, or Styrofoam walls flying around (not too obviously anyway), and the CGI is up-to-date. But then again the story line (or rather the suspension of disbelieve) cuts in: the imagery on the computer screens at the geological crisis center are good quality, but unrealistic; the distance people and helicopters are maneuvering from exposed lava or occurring earthquakes is sheer impossible; not to mention the small amount of people that apparently are actually caught in the disaster (admittedly, the number of extras swarming the make-shift medical rescue centers is impressive).

Overall the movie shows rather realistic disasters, but that is all it does. There's no real science in the movie, there's no real personal drama (should I care for a person just because he/she is introduced to me?), and there is no satisfactory ending (yeah, yeah, we shall overcome …).

Not worthy of 1 or 2 out of 10. Flawed but many things to praise

[Scotthannaford1 · 6/10 · 8 June 2006]

Now I have read some of the reviews posted here about 10.5 Apocalypse and feel that I need to try and restore some point of order. I haven't seen it's prequel, and am not in a huge rush, as it appears to be more of the same. However, I caught most of the mini-series, and to be honest I enjoyed it in a not-having-to-think kind of way. As TV movies/mini-series go, it passed a few hours and was decent eye candy.

To rate the movie as a 1 or a 2 is just subjective and close-minded of the viewer who has probably not watched the whole thing, and certainly can't have seen such dross as "Freddie Got Fingered", "From Kelly To Justin" or "Kung Pow" - they deserve 1 and 2 - this doesn't.

Now to discuss its weak points...when you get such a large cast on a presumably tight budget (we aren't talking LOTR funding here), it is inevitable that the actors are not going to be academy award winners. Dean Cain is not a good actor, neither is Oliver Hudson. Beau Bridges does a decent attempt (although, rather too Dubya for my liking) and only Frank Langella comes out with any credit.... however my second criticism is the Langella character - he is the quintessential stereotype of intellectual hero - leads people to safety from the tower and then leads the race to come up with a solution (let's mix in a little Dustin Hoffman from Outbreak, plus Gene Hackman from Poseidon Adventure, a sprinkle of Sean Connery from Meteor).... in fact the characters are, to a large extent, stereotypes - we have the religious Latino, the scared paramedic, the maverick rescue guys, the beautiful boffin, the jap/Chinese boffin, the rescue boss who takes advice from a by-the-book number two and ignores it... need I go on?.... oh and the reconciliation between father and daughter is a bit erm sickly.

So, yes, the acting is dire, the direction is mediocre...

But now... the positives... For a start, the CGI is actually quite impressive. Not ground breaking (wonderful pun), but it more than adequately does what is required. The action is well paced and generally well shot. The effects inside the collapsing tower is actually pretty exciting, and it is to the film's benefit that it is willing to kill off quite important characters (shock factor). Probably the best part of the film is the surprise ending where the fault does split the country in two. It would have been expected for the boffins to set off the charges by the nuclear plant and stop the fault just in time (as in James Bond)... however the fact that the film shows science failing and the most powerful country in the world unable to defeat what is essentially mother nature at her most destructive is very praiseworthy. Okay, so you might have wanted a happy ending - in which case get lost over to the religious loonies at ChildCare Action Project and find a pathetic piece of claptrap. This is a DISASTER movie, and as long as you don't want a fake oh so happy ending, then this ending is spot on.

As mini-series go, it is poorly acted and has more clichés than you can poke with a cattle-prod, but the CGI, pace and unexpected ending makes it more than worthwhile.

Amateur blunder from the first minute

[Snootz · 2/10 · 15 April 2019]

This film makes a tremendous amateur blunder from from the very beginning: it assumes the audience has seen (what I understand to be) the first film. (I hadn't.) There is no build-up, no dramatic lead-in, no preparing the viewer for what is about to happen... no indication there even WAS a prior film. In the first 60 seconds this drops cataclysm right into our laps with no preparation, no explanation, no warning. BAM! Here's an earthquake. BAM! Here's a tidal wave! BAM! Here's a volcano blowing its top.

Same holds true for the characters. There are no references to the prior film, no flashbacks to explain the existing story, nothing to prepare the audience for characters that pop out of nowhere and we're just supposed to magically understand their backgrounds and issues and empathize with what's going on.

The result: I paused this turkey after 15 minutes of ridiculously bad directing, came to IMDB and read the reviews, then shut it off... glad that I didn't waste three hours on what I'd already figured to be a prime example of how not to make a movie. Thanks IMDB, for helping me not turn that loser 15 minutes into a total loser evening.

This Movie Rocked

[ninjalogic · 10/10 · 25 May 2006]

Cool Graphics, Cool Plot, Cool Acting, Realistically It Was Decent Except for the part where everyone is crying at the end, it was retarded you could tell everyone was faking it, and when Jordon was looking at the dam, and then realized that he should leave and the pilot is sitting there waiting for him to say something, if i were that pilot i would of kept my distance from that. all in all it was a OK, i would give a 6 out of 10. just because it was entertaining to see what could happen when the earth really decides to do what this movie shows us.

Hope This Was Helpful

Every Dog Must Have It's (2) Day (Mini-Series)

[scook-13 · 25 May 2006]

Did you see that NBC mini-series this past week? I think its title was "10.5 Cliché Apocalypse." It had to be perhaps the worst TV movie ever, and, yet, at the same time, absolutely riveting. It was like every cliché ever done in every B movie joins forces with the worst special effects Hollywood has ever produced (at least in the past 50 years) and attacks every landmark that the average semi-brain-dead TV viewer could possibly imagine. In one action-packed mini- series you get to see nature in all its fury attack Hawaii, Las Vegas, the Hoover Dam, Mount Rushmore and much more. How cool can you get? The only thing the writers forgot was to give someone a mild case of bird flu. There, my friend, would go the perfect screenplay. What was particularly touching about the movie though was that in the midst of absolutely devastating destruction and unparalleled loss of life, the key characters took the time to have meaningful dialogue with one another. For instance, there was the President's semi-homely (think an ugly Amy Carter, if your mind will allow you to do that) daughter who feels over protected and wants to prove she's up to the challenge of helping to save lives. The only problem is she really can't save lives. In fact, she can't do much more than carry towels around the earthquake torn areas. First, why would FEMA waste money sending someone to a disaster relief site who had no more skills than carrying towels? Oops, I guess I answered my own question. Anyway the daughter gets out into the field and immediately realizes she can't put her finger in the open wound of another person without nearly passing out. So the good doctor stops trying to help the injured and begins his own special process of helping the President's daughter to heal emotionally. I'm sure that if I were bleeding to death I'd be more than understanding if such a thing were to happen. Then there was this lady scientist who is evidently fighting the emotional demons of having a brilliant scientist father who after getting his feelings hurt parlays his genius into a successful poker career. Finally, as fate would have it, the father and daughter are reunited. And, as the United States splits into two killing everyone in the path of a fast-moving cartoon crevice, father and daughter take a little time out to reflect on their troubled past. Very touching, I must say. There were other great story lines masterfully woven into the spellbinding plot. And I stayed in a constant state of amazement that all of the main characters had time to resolve their silly little personal issues while virtually everyone they knew was lying dead around them. Wouldn't it be nice if in real life, we stopped worrying about trivialities like people dying, and took the time to really get in touch with our feelings? The most amazing thing about the whole story was that there was no hero...no one came along and saved the day. Despite the fact that the brilliant card-playing ex-scientist proclaims, "Hey, we have a great big world to save," in the end, the rift in the earth's substrata (or whatever) won. It tore the U.S. in two, in a most animated way. But, and here's the really touching part, just before the credits (blames) roll, President Beau Bridges states rather philosophically, in so many words, "Well the country has been cut in half, but we're still one country." Nothing truly unites a nation like a new fault line creating a permanent geo-physical split down its center. I guess the basic moral of the story was it doesn't really matter how many people die. As long as you can end up with a comforting cliché all is right in the world. I, for one, don't buy into that theory. As my old pappy used to tell me, "Son," he said. "Avoid clichés like the plague." I've always subscribed to his (my pappy's) theory, and all I can say is that all's well that ends well. Or, do I say if life hands you a lemon, make lemonade? Funny, I can't remember what it is I always say, but I'm always saying it, that's for sure.

A "2" For Plausibility; A "10.5" For The CGI Effects

[virek213 · 6/10 · 26 July 2013]

There isn't a whole lot that can be said about the 2006 two-part TV miniseries 10.5: APOCALYPSE that hasn't been said about its 2004 "prequel" (which was just "plain-old" 10.5), except that it's a special effects extravaganza come true, with zero fidelity to scientific plausibility. This time, an all-star cast, including Kim Delaney, Beau Bridges (as the President), Dean Cain, and Frank Langella, find that the catastrophic earthquakes that leveled Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle in the original miniseries are growing so intense that they will eventually split the continental shelf asunder, and cause parts of the United States to separate. This, of course, requires radical and (naturally) implausible action.

John Lafia, who both directed and co-wrote both this film and the original, went to great pains to declare both films to be entertainment, not to be believed. He's right, of course; but the same could be said for a lot of similarly apocalyptic mega-disaster movies of the last decade and a half. The hard truth of the matter is that it's just very hard, to get past the level of implausibility that is thrown the viewer's way in 10.5: APOCALYPSE, and how sometimes the acting by an otherwise credible cast veers occasionally towards the laughable. Even previous films like the 1974 sci-fi/disaster opus EARTHQUAKE, or the 1990 made-for-TV film THE BIG ONE: THE GREAT LOS ANGELES EARTHQUAKE (both of which depicted the wiping off the map of Los Angeles), and the later 2009 Roland Emmerich-directed end-of-the-world spectacle "2012", compared to 10.5: APOCALYPSE, are made by this film to look like as if someone on the order of Stanley Kubrick or Steven Spielberg directed them, since the implausibility and the frequently lame dialogue weighs everything down to a large degree. And Lafia's overuse of the zoom lens is especially grating, though, to be honest, this is a two-part TV miniseries, and not a big-screen extravaganza.

But then again, you will most likely not be seeing this film for plausibility, since the biggest reason for the existence of 10.5: APOCALPYSE, as was the case with the original, is the incredible special effects destruction sequences, this time involving Las Vegas and Houston; and the rescue sequences are done with a certain measure of credibility. This is, as advertised, a very uneven flick, and probably should rate a zero for plausibility, though to be kind I'll give it a '2'. As a special effects lover's paradise, however, I'm indeed rating it a 10.5, which averages out to a '6' on the IMDb ratings scale (or 6.25, to be on the nose).

Other commentators are too nice

[storkus-1 · 1/10 · 21 May 2006]

The only sci-fi buffs who would like this movie are...Mystery Science Theater 3000 buffs! Seriously, I should be recording all the comments I'm making while watching this. We have a local horror host here named Zomboo (who curiously is missing from the IMDb) who does a MST3k-type bit except he inserts himself into the movie, and I dearly wish the lawyers weren't so strict about copyright issues because this movie would be PERFECT for him, MST3k, or anyone else who does similar work.

In other words, bad effects, bad acting, a script that borders between bad and "it MUST be tongue-in-cheek!": this movie is one to tape and bring to a party where everyone is totally lit!

Mike