Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

virek213 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).

Michael Thompson I think the critics of this movie must have spent the entire time of over two hours watching this movie while playing with their mobile phones.This was a really very good film, exiting, passionate, excellent script and excellent special effects and the acting was also, great.My wife and I sat through the entire time on this film sitting virtually on the edge of our streets, because once this film gets going, it doesn't stop.The special effects are first class.From all the earthquake movies my wife have seen, this is up there with the very best, no doubt about it.So, you go ahead whomever is reading my review, rent or buy this film, and just expect to be entertained with an earthquake fiction movie, full of great performances, great action, great special effects, and a bit of emotion thrown in for good measure.10 out of 10 from my wife, and myself.

Wizkids1 What did we learn from 10.5 Apocalypse? Well, some very important factors...First, if there ever is a huge earthquake, don't worry, somehow or another there will be thousands of beauticians and make-up artists running around ensuring we all look great while the United States sinks into some hole. Yes, this series shows that whether falling from crumbling buildings, or caught in the falling debris, you can still look like Lancome's latest model.Second, No one at the USGS has a brain. Yes, they are all so stupid they don't even know what a "rift quake" is until the beautiful doctor know-it-all comes on the scene to tell them.Third, all rescue teams are made up of hunks. It must be that Calvin Klein is putting together these teams because they are all handsome, buffed-up, and not a fully grown, or fully shaven beard among them! Fourth, take heart - when this earthquake hits, we have one redeeming factor to look forward to. Most of Texas will be drowned. We can only hope that George W. Bush is at home for this disaster and if we get lucky, Dick Cheney might be visiting him.This mini-series is, without a doubt, the stupidest, most idiotic, most boring presentation ever developed by man. It presumes that the viewer is a moron, and has so many lousy actors doing their absolute worst that within less than an hour, the only enjoyment one gets from this mess is thoroughly enjoying watching whining screaming idiots get killed - and the best is that every such 'tragedy' is forecast.The filming alone is enough to make you sea-sick, with the camera zooming up the actors nose every time some 'heavy' line is to be delivered. And heavy lines? Holy moly, this series is loaded with the most clichéd lines per second, and every one of them drops with a dull thud.Avoid this series at all costs unless you enjoy severe torture - which is what watching this dud is all about.

AvdW 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 …).