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. KevG.
    Apr 5, 2008
    5
    As a soon to be scientist, I get easily appauled at the lack of research into the believability. However with movies like "10.5" I can ignore that aspect and enjoy what would be an awesome event to witness. However, as much as this sequel entertained, I spent more time in confusion and disbelief than in blissful entertainment. Killing off the only sane character, missing other characters, As a soon to be scientist, I get easily appauled at the lack of research into the believability. However with movies like "10.5" I can ignore that aspect and enjoy what would be an awesome event to witness. However, as much as this sequel entertained, I spent more time in confusion and disbelief than in blissful entertainment. Killing off the only sane character, missing other characters, that all pales in comparison to the almost forced disregard for any kind of scientific knowledge, starting with 10.5's suggestion that the San Andreas fault (which runs from the Gulf of California to San Fran) would rupture Sanata Monica for no reason, to the tsunami reaching at least 40 feet tall on the open water... and a faultline right in the middle of the continent (instead of teh more realisitic New Madrid faultline) was nothing short of utter chaos!! Pretty dissappointing, only think I liked was the effects and the global view at the end. Expand
  2. deea
    May 24, 2006
    5
    Soooooo bad it was a hoot. & what happened to Kim's face? Injections or weight gain?
  3. BryenF
    May 23, 2006
    4
    It was Ok, Alot of mistakes that were very easy to catch. Like how did the news get the picture of the wall of water coming down the vally if the chopper was destroyed befor that. And on every map they forgot to show that Calafornia was now cut off from the rest of the U.S. Also in the first movie the fissure chased the train. At first it was beleivable untill the train went around a It was Ok, Alot of mistakes that were very easy to catch. Like how did the news get the picture of the wall of water coming down the vally if the chopper was destroyed befor that. And on every map they forgot to show that Calafornia was now cut off from the rest of the U.S. Also in the first movie the fissure chased the train. At first it was beleivable untill the train went around a corner. Then as soon as the train fell in the fissure stopped. Expand
  4. DJ
    Jun 8, 2006
    5
    Cliched, hackneyed and full of bad acting, but still an entertaining way to pass a few hours.
  5. Eve006.75
    Jun 13, 2006
    5
    The zrelentless zoom in and out camera work is overdone and makes me dizzy to watch. The acting is so OTT it's laughable.
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.