Stonehenge Apocalypse (2010) Reviews

• Above average SYFY movie

  cassmj2010-06-13

  I was expecting the same 'ol SYFY, but instead found this to be above average for that network. The acting was fine -- sometimes actually good -- and the story was acceptable. They actually paid attention to small details as well, which added to the attraction. I was actually interested in most of the characters and wanted them to live; compare this to Princess of Mars where I wondered if there actually was a story, and didn't care if the characters disappeared. Some reviews here bashed the story, but I can only ask: did you forget this is SYFY? It's science "fiction" -- science "fact" appears on the Science Channel, History, National Geographic, etc. This is a fine SYFY story, enjoyable, and fun. Give it a shot.

• How the world might end on a low budget

  MartianOctocretr52010-06-13

  The generic style title makes it sound going in like a just another end-of-everything flick, and OK to approach just as a mindless way to kill some time on a stay-in evening. It's got a limited budget as you'd expect, but the script manages to offer a few new ideas. Stonehenge, due to its mysterious origin, creator, and purpose, is ripe for one of these "way out" doomsday prophecy themed stories. Without giving away too much, weird stuff starts happening at the famous site. Other similar ancient shrines all over the world also seem to be effecting odd behavior. (Warning: essential cliché hero alert:) The hero is a brilliant rogue scientist who's into conspiracy theories, lol. Throw in a general who wants to nuke stuff, a cult with a demented prophet, some high powered alien contraptions, and an "ancient artifact" that looks like it was taken from a 1962 Ford Falcon. Oddly enough, the thread of the story is all tied together pretty nicely. The story is told well, although the resolution of things takes some doing to swallow. Cheap, but a fair way to spend some time.

• Don't bother

  charris-80-8701662011-06-14

  If one wishes to make a motion picture in the Science Fiction genre, one should start with a reasonably valid premise and develop the plot around that premise. It makes the storyline more or less believable. Furthermore, the plot should be developed in a believable manner. The concept of detonating a nuclear device at the Stonehenge location by some American General, without a word of interference from the British people is a bit of an imaginative stretch to say the least. Furthermore, it conveys a condescending attitude and the impression that if the world is to be saved, it will be done by an American. Overall, the plot was trite and boringly predictable. Comparing this poorly thought out piece with '2012' (As seen on the DVD box cover) is ridiculous and serves only to engender further distrust of movie reviews. Having said that, I didn't think much of the concept behind '2012' either but at least the plot was interesting.

• My thoughts

  MaxusSpookirie2010-06-12

  Well, I watched this movie and its companion movie, Annihilation Earth tonight. Stonehenge Apocalypse was more believable and enjoyable than its companion movie for SyFy Saturday Night. Naturally, the plot was really silly. Volcanoes out of the World Heritage site pyramids, really? I had to laugh at that. Stonehenge as a doomsday clock countdown counter and destruction mechanism. That is something different, and I had to give bonus points for that idea. The dialogue and acting in the movie was bearable compared to Annihilation Earth's. The special effects is the SyFy usual. There wasn't much of a focus on the doomsday cult. I had to laugh.. The movie painted the British head officer of sciences was a complete moron. He didn't know half the stuff he was discussing.. If it wasn't for Annihilation Earth, I would have given this movie a far worse review, but i think that piece of crap saved this movie a star and half from the worst star rating on my scale.

• Better than 2012

  scottwallvashon2010-06-13

  This was much better than I expected. It actually had an idea and a structure. It provided the "theory" that was missing from the much more extravagant 2012. The ending not only tied the plot together, but gave a nice finishing touch to the story's hero. And the hero of the story was much more appealing than the self-righteous know-it-all that they typically feature in this type of movie. If this movie had more impressive special effects and more style, it would be a superior version of the 2012 film. It is a mystery to me how 2012 got made without a real plot, but this movie that actually has a plot got made on such a small budget.