10.5: Apocalypse

  • Network: NBC
  • Series Premiere Date: May 21, 2006
User Score
4.2

Mixed or average reviews- based on 52 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 17 out of 52
  2. Negative: 30 out of 52

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. MikeD
    May 22, 2006
    1
    It stinks, but the first installment was fun to watch. The players will be laughing all the way to the bank. Oh - how did they manage to keep the lights on in Vegas after the electricity source - the generating facilities at Hoover Dam - were washed away in the dam collapse? Oh, well, why let logic intrude on the stupidity of it all.
  2. Jim
    May 24, 2006
    2
    I thought computer graphics were better these days. The only reason why I watched it was because Tony Almeida was in it. The lines were so cheesy that I almost thought it was a comedy rather than an action film.
  3. [Anonymous]
    May 20, 2006
    1
    Not only is this concept absurd, the representation of the effects of a quake is laughable.
  4. JamesA
    May 29, 2006
    0
    The fact that there is no sex or violence isn't why people don't like this show. People like myself don't like this show because it's a disgusting pile of s***. 'Nuff said.
  5. Sam
    May 30, 2006
    2
    It's sad in a disaster movie (or in this case, a "TV" disaster movie, Brilliant!) when the real disaster is the movie. It's true, we have a disaster movie so horrid that it makes "Asteroid" look like a classic.
  6. David
    Jun 3, 2006
    0
    If you like watching various parts of the US explode randomly, bad sfx, horrid acting and dialogue, a plot written by a third-grader, and lame pseudo-science, then this mini-series is for you!
  7. DaleH
    May 11, 2007
    0
    Actually, it was pretty hilarious.
  8. SamG
    May 24, 2009
    2
    I rated this as a 2 since the camera work ruined it. It seemed as if it could have been a good movie, except the zoom in, zoom out was horrible; it was not natural. No one ever moves in then moves out when talking to someone. The first time this movie came out, I stopped watching it after 15 minutes. That was all the time I could bear with that camera work. It was making me sick.
  9. JimB
    Jun 15, 2009
    1
    This movie was on rerun last evening. Watched it with the girlfriend. We had such a great time watching this complete train wreck. She thought it important to wrestle me down every time I talked over the dialog commenting about the implausibility of events. This happened about every minute or so. She admonished me to be quiet so she could listen to the riveting story. I just loved the This movie was on rerun last evening. Watched it with the girlfriend. We had such a great time watching this complete train wreck. She thought it important to wrestle me down every time I talked over the dialog commenting about the implausibility of events. This happened about every minute or so. She admonished me to be quiet so she could listen to the riveting story. I just loved the fact that you can reroute a moving fault line by blowing up a gas field. Expand
  10. HaroldM
    May 21, 2006
    2
    Views should either keep track of the disaster-movie cliche's or the number of scientific impossibilities.
  11. BillC
    May 21, 2006
    0
    Dead air would have been more entertaining. I was forced to channel surf for commercials.
  12. AJMurray
    May 21, 2006
    1
    Awful script, terrible acting (Jeff Bridges looks like he's soiling himself throughout), absurd premise. Stabilize the San Andreas fault by setting off a string of warheads - now there's a plan! Utter crap.
  13. MelTorme
    May 22, 2006
    1
    it's just so crappy you have to watch it
  14. GregH
    May 22, 2006
    2
    There's a problem with having a sequal two years after a "part 1"... the actors have eaten bags of hohos in the meantime. 10.5 part 2 supposedly takes place within hours of part 1, yet no one can explain how the charactors played by Delaney and Cubitt have mysteriously gained about 15 pounds each - within hours. The actress who plays the Presidents daughter (she's so bad her There's a problem with having a sequal two years after a "part 1"... the actors have eaten bags of hohos in the meantime. 10.5 part 2 supposedly takes place within hours of part 1, yet no one can explain how the charactors played by Delaney and Cubitt have mysteriously gained about 15 pounds each - within hours. The actress who plays the Presidents daughter (she's so bad her name eludes me) - my god, how can anyone act this badly and be allowed in front of a TV? She looks like she's about to have a nervous breakdown with each line she reads. The last "oh geez" moment is when Cubitt's charactor decides to get himself killed by hovering no more than 6 inches above boiling water behind a dam, oh, and then hovering 2 feet *in front of* that dam that 's about to burst. Cheeeeeseyyyyyyyy! Expand
  15. AdamW
    May 23, 2006
    1
    Horrible... the special effects are awful, the scences aren't realistic (e.g., King's Peak in Utah is WAY above the timberline), the acting is pitiful, and the screenplay is garbage. This is Le Bad Cinema!
  16. georger
    May 23, 2006
    1
    such a disappointment. Good actors, terrible acting. Don't intend to watch the second part. Too bad NBC!
  17. PeggyM
    May 23, 2006
    2
    This movie is one of the best unintentional comedies I have ever seen. Love the scene in the first part where the woman from FEMA, trying to prove her FEMAness after being dissed by the man, tells the guys in truck COME ON, lets get this truck unloaded. Evidenly they were all sitting around in a disaster area with their fingers up their behind wondering "duuuuh what do we do with these This movie is one of the best unintentional comedies I have ever seen. Love the scene in the first part where the woman from FEMA, trying to prove her FEMAness after being dissed by the man, tells the guys in truck COME ON, lets get this truck unloaded. Evidenly they were all sitting around in a disaster area with their fingers up their behind wondering "duuuuh what do we do with these vital emergency supplies? Leave them on the truck?" I almost gave this film a ten for it's humor value Expand
  18. Kelly
    May 23, 2006
    0
    The most amazingly awful aacting, storyline and dialogue I've ever had to suufer through. And yea, I actually started laughing at the utter absurdity of the entire production. This really could be classified as a dark comedy!
  19. Elijah
    May 23, 2006
    3
    Well pretty much anyone who has even watched five minutes of this show knows it's awful in every sense of the word. But it also falls under the category, at certain times, of being so bad it's good. The story is cliche ridden and predictable as it gets. The acting is hilariously awful and the special effects pathetic. These filler shows like Bird Flu and 10.5 Apocalypse are Well pretty much anyone who has even watched five minutes of this show knows it's awful in every sense of the word. But it also falls under the category, at certain times, of being so bad it's good. The story is cliche ridden and predictable as it gets. The acting is hilariously awful and the special effects pathetic. These filler shows like Bird Flu and 10.5 Apocalypse are making the networks look pretty stupid. Collapse
  20. MIchaelC
    May 24, 2006
    1
    The film
  21. STEVEG
    May 25, 2006
    3
    mostly a big bore.
  22. Auslan
    Nov 19, 2006
    0
    I am a big fan of the cheesy USA produced disaster movie; no matter how bad I will watch anything with tidal waves; volcanos; earthquakes etc. Yet even I had to record this piece of utter crap: then i just fastforwarded it to the juicy bits (e.g. the woefully impossible special effects). I am always prepared to suspend belief; but this one required a quantum leap to sub-moronic level. I am a big fan of the cheesy USA produced disaster movie; no matter how bad I will watch anything with tidal waves; volcanos; earthquakes etc. Yet even I had to record this piece of utter crap: then i just fastforwarded it to the juicy bits (e.g. the woefully impossible special effects). I am always prepared to suspend belief; but this one required a quantum leap to sub-moronic level. Without doubt THE WORST I have ever seen. Expand
  23. LucyM
    May 24, 2006
    3
    So bad it was enjoyable.
  24. ScottH
    May 24, 2006
    3
    Awful acting. Filled with flaws. Unbeleievable scenes, such as the senior geologist telling the army explosives expert where to place the charge on the gas lines. There was also scene steeling from othe movies, like the debat between the geologist and the casino employee on which way to best get out of the casino, up or down...can you say "Poseidon?"
  25. BrettJ
    May 24, 2006
    2
    I want one of those 1400/mph choppers so I can hop off to N. Dakota or Texas like I'm going out to the 7/11.
  26. LorraineT
    Jul 26, 2009
    1
    The zoom in and zoom out made me ill. If anyone wants to ruin his or her career, follow what this director did to this movie.
Metascore
23

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 12 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 12
  2. Negative: 9 out of 12
  1. The four-hour project was written and directed by John Lafia, who managed to find new and creative ways to turn every scene into a cliche and get a cringe from every line of dialogue.
  2. 50
    The sheer brazenness of its borrowed trashiness makes it oddly watchable.
  3. "10.5: Apocalypse," is visually dazzling, relentlessly hysterical and also a sequel, which means that most viewers sitting down to watch it know what they're getting into. That should damp down any untoward expectations -- the appearance of a believable character, for instance, or piece of dialogue, neither of which, be assured, is to be found here.