Home > Adventure >

10.5: Apocalypse

10.5: Apocalypse (2006)

March. 18,2006
|
4.4
|
PG
| Adventure Drama Action Thriller

A jolted West Coast deals with the deadly aftereffects of a massive tremor in this sequel to the disaster drama 10.5. Concerned that a widening fault line may set off two nuclear reactors, seismologist Samantha Hill (Kim Delaney) contacts the president (Beau Bridges). Assembling an expert rescue team, they search for the one man who can help them: Samantha's father (Frank Langella), a scientist who predicted this catastrophe. Dean Cain co-stars.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

ThiefHott
2006/03/18

Too much of everything

More
Redwarmin
2006/03/19

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

More
PiraBit
2006/03/20

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

More
Plustown
2006/03/21

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

More
Keith Pangilinan
2006/03/22

Remember when on rabbi-ear TV it showed TV movies? I think "10.5: Apocalypse" was the last ones to show on network TV & there's a good reason why. (Only those Hallmark-type TV movies seem to appear these days.) 1st of all, where do I start w/ what sucks about "10.5: Apocalypse"? Is it having a trombonist as a cameraman? Has-been actors Kim Delaney or Dean Cain being the most recognizable in the cast? ("NYPD Blue" & "Lois & Clark" seem to be the zeniths in their respective careers.) Is it the fact that an earthquake moves like Bugs Bunny stopping & making a left turn around the nuclear power plant & is depicted as an actual lava chasm that gets more powerful as the Richter scale increases? Or is it the tiresome depiction of disaster film characters, from the determined band of survivors who get picked off 1-by-1 when necessary w/ the tiresome backstories & subplots that are meant for you 2 give a damn about 'em or the government officials, from the fearless leaders like Delaney or the guy who plays her dad, Frank Langella, while the others, including the President himself, are in DC fretting & arguing about how to stop the calamity? "Dammit, that's impossible! We don't got the time!" If I may, I assume they got the money to deploy government or military personnel to stop said calamity since in reality nobody has such a budget, bull or bear market. Let's see. I must start w/ the cinematography, & then special effects, than characters & plot. 1st off, the back-&-forth filming of "10.5: Apocalypse" is just godawful, plane & simple. I actually was getting nauseous watching every damn scene zoomed in & out, even during scenes of heavy dialogue like among the government workers. This may be okay for a 8-year-old excited to play w/ a camcorder or an 18-year-old making a silly monster movie w/ a 18-year-old's budget & properties. But it's grossly unprofessional to do so in a TV movie, notably w/ multiple cameras. I'm a fan of bad movies, but I don't remember any other movie I've seen in Spanish or any film on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" that had such a sickening feature like the gratuitous zoomin'. If Razzies could be awarded for other categories, I'd give 1 to "Girl In Gold Boots" for Editing, "Hamlet" (the MSTied one) for Art Direction, & "10.5: Apocalypse" for Cinematography. "Manos: the Hands of Fate" should be lucky to be nominated; overzooming is much much worse than having just a 16mm Bell & Howell that films only 32 seconds. What's next? CGI. The special effects were the best, or I should say the most tolerable part of the movie. For a film made in the '00s, CGI's the way to go. But it is a TV movie, so it's nothing like "Lord of the Rings." The plot, lackluster as it is, is quite familiar when it comes to disaster flicks. Some natural disaster or a combination of 'em, like earthquakes in Vegas & the Great Plains or volcanoes in the northwest, threaten to extinguish humanity or something like that, w/ great disregard for basic science. (People dying quickly in a volcanic eruption is a proved fact, though; been like that from Pompeii to Indonesia.) I don't see the big deal out of this. Regardless of deaths on a genocidal scale, seeing new straits & channels carve up California & North America's kinda cool. New maps, yay! I'm a map geek. I'd be interested to see how the newly changed geography changes transportation, economics & politics. Just look at the lighter side of things, a la "This Is the End". Why so serious? Thus bringing me to the characters. While I still know about 5 years worth of Spanish, the acting was rather identical to the over-acting on telenovelas to tell me that these guys were playing it straight like the director's basic instructions was "Think of 9/11! Action!" My apologies, but seeing the President & his crew act like they're learning about New Orleans, Haiti or the 2 tsunamis over the past decade while watching a new map of the US be made is just freakin' ludicrous (although the trombone-cam wasn't just crazier but very distracting). & I may not be keen on politics, but why must we also believe that the President & other government agencies such as FEMA got the whole thing covered? (Take note this was made around the time Katrina did New Orleans; either the producers weren't aware or ignored FEMA's bad publicity.) & when we're not watching President Beau Bridges look sad or frustrated regularly, we must watch the determined band of survivors in Las Vegas. This was pretty much "The Poseidon Adventure" stage of "10.5: Apocalypse." When Vegas sinks, we should have learned enough about these guys to cheer them on as they seek out safety (or cheer after one dies after making bets as to who'd be killed 1st). In conclusion, "10.5: Apocalypse," compared to "The Poseidon Adventure" or "Independence Day" before, or "2012" or "Pacific Rim" afterwards, is very amateurish & is the archetype of TV-movies about disasters that's only seen on Syfy or Unimas. & again, boo to the trombonist director.

More
Michael Thompson
2006/03/23

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.

More
Brendan Lawrence (brendan2508)
2006/03/24

I must say that I should not be wasting time giving a review on this piece of drivel but I am compelled to! First of all, the acting was second-rate, the direction was like watching someone with a case of jitters who never used a tripod or similar device to hold the thing still! I never felt so annoyed since watching Blair Witch (not to mention that fight scene in Bourne Ultimatum - Paul Greengrass' annoyingly hand-held direction!).And at the end the ludicrous scene where everyone broke down and cried at once, even Mr President (Beau Bridges) ... I mean how undignified was that?!

More
DLargo
2006/03/25

I thought at least Beau Bridges would be good as president. He's played the role before, right? But some nitwit wrote an awful verbose script for him. I'm sure as a crisis is just beginning, when half the country is affected, the president would not call scientists and thank them on behalf of a grateful nation...well you get the drift. Watch it when you need a good snooze. The best part of the film was the beginning when Los Angeles is destroyed by a tidal wave. So OK, the special effects aren't that bad. If you could watch it with the sound off and skip the parts where people are talking I suppose it might not be that bad. I don't have the patience for films this bad.

More