10.5: Apocalypse

Show Info

Genre(s): Action / Adventure, Drama

First Air Date: May 21, 2006

Summary

Starring Kim Delaney, Beau Bridges, David Cubitt, Dean Cain, Oliver Hudson, Garcelle Beauvais-Nilon, Carlos Bernard, and Frank Langella

In a new miniseries sequel that has "disaster" written all over it, a series of super-sized seismic events (they're called "quake swarms," people) threatens not only the west coast--as in NBC's earlier "10.5"--but the entire United States and perhaps all of the western hemisphere.

Episode Guide & More Info: More about this show at TV.com

Also On The Web: Official Show Site

What The Critics Said

All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...

What Our Users Said

Vote Now!The average user rating for this show is 4.2 (out of 10) based on 52 User Votes

Note: User votes are NOT included in the Metascore calculation.

Lorraine T gave it a1:
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.

Jim B gave it a1:
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.

Sam G gave it a2:
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.

Kev G. gave it a5:
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.

Dale H gave it a0:
Actually, it was pretty hilarious.

Aus lan gave it a0:
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.

Sharae M gave it a9:
I watched the first 10.5 , which needless to say prompted my watching of the second one. Excuse me if I'm not one of the "nit picky" people that focus on the "believeability " of anything due to the special effects or what errors there may have been in the camera-work. I enjoyed it and at the same time it heighted my awareness to something that is not "out of the question". Anything can happen, and it can happen here. I remember Mount St.Helens.

Read more user comments >