I love this movie so much

Brilliant and touching

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

I literally got nauseous trying to watch this film because of the constant zooming in and out. Had to turn it off.

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).

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

This movie by far had the worst camera work I have ever seen. Every time someone would talk the camera rapidly would have to zoom in closely on the person's face almost to their nostrils to emphasize rising action or suspense. The camera work finally got so annoying I had to turn the movie off and watch something else. As for the special effects in this movie, I can understand the fact that they didn't have millions to spend on blowing stuff up, so the little HO scale model of the Golden Gate Bridge made it's point, but was almost laughable to see a movie made in the past few years still use the 1940's style special effects. In my opinion this movie could have been much better had it not been for the annoying camera work, and over acting played by the actors/actresses. In the scene of where the Ford Explorer gets swallowed up by the loose ground, the effects were so phony and "superman-ish" they should have just super imposed Lois Lane's head for the little girl's and just cropped out that scene of Superman and placed it in this 10.5 piece of crap.