Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

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

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

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).

....is the last line that Dr Earl Hill/Frank Langella utters in this saga. And therein lies the best way to sum up this telemovie that is catastrophic, but for all the wrong reasons.Pity he didn't pay more attention to it when he read this thing & agreed to do it!Apparently, more lines are required to make this review valid! Really? What else is there to say? Not bad enough to be "so bad, it's good". Every clichéd piece of dialogue that has ever graced a bad telemovie, gathered together & trotted out one after the other. Is that enough now??!!!

In all honesty, I wasn't expecting all that much from 10.5: Apocalypse. Even then though you do expect for it to be somewhat watchable. Unfortunately 10.5: Apocalypse was completely unwatchable. Where to start? The visual side is a good place to start. As the constant zooming in and out style of the camera work made my eyes hurt, not a good thing as I have epilepsy. That way it made it difficult to appreciate the scenery or effects, neither of which were particularly brilliant either. The scenery is dully lit and the effects on the most part fake. The music is generic, while the dialogue is so cheesy and stilted that I couldn't stop cringing in the more dramatic scenes and the story is never exciting or suspenseful, instead it is predictable, riddled with scientific errors and the pace begs for a steroid shot. The characters are underdeveloped and stereotypical, and the actors cannot do anything with their characters or dialogue, no wonder, and most look embarrassed to even be participating, can't say I blame them. So overall, a disaster of a film. 1/10 Bethany Cox

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