10 years after the first Alien object (Torus) arose. Two more Torus appear causing havoc on a global level.10 years after the first Alien object (Torus) arose. Two more Torus appear causing havoc on a global level.10 years after the first Alien object (Torus) arose. Two more Torus appear causing havoc on a global level.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Angel Boris Reed
- Sondra
- (as Angel Boris)
Dessi Morales
- Kellenworth
- (as Desislava Nikolova)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I wish I could've seen this high budget movie in theaters, i loved the first one, and it kept me interested throughout. The plot was very much the same as the first one mixed with a bit of Taken, but that isn't bad, very good in fact, the plot was good, the religious overtones worked real well like in the first movie. There was also good acting, David Keith was real natural in his role, and just about all the characters likable when supposed to be and dislikable when supposed to be. All in all, the best tho hours I've had in recent weeks. A good watch.
This is the FIRST film I have ever scene where, when a soldier gets shot and killed actually screams OWWWW!! or screams in pain when hit. Other than that, when any film brings in religion as a subtext...That is, in a SciFi film, it simply does not work. Even Faith Domergue would have never worn a cross on a chain in her cult classic films. Has anyone noticed that in the last 10 years of film-making the book of GENESIS seems to appear more and more? As an instance where religion DOES show its face is in the H.G.Wells 2005 version of WAR OF THE WORLDS with C. Thomas Howell which did mention the BOOK OF REVELATIONS in its script. In this film, which got some fairly good ratings from viewers when I saw it on the SYFY Channel, when people die, they also do not make any noise of pain when they die. I believe H.G.Wells was an Atheist or Agnostic in case the writers of this version read his book. If anyone has ever been around a real death or wounding of a human, you will remember audible screams of pain.
Quite literally, this movie was laughable. The acting is atrocious, my friends and I were busting up laughing in every single scene. It was fairly entertaining, actually, it is the sort of movie that will end up on Mystery Science Theatre 4000 in about 20 years. It looks like they blew all of their mid-level budget on the computer effects scenes, which are decent. The rest of the movie takes place in and out of various tents, and the Torus... which looks suspiciously like a laser tag arena that they rented for a few hours one afternoon. The plot is silly and obvious, the religious overtones are blatant to the point of being insulting. If you want to see a melodramatic cheesy sci-fi movie, this one delivers in spades.
The hero looks like the Fat Elvis version of David Hasselhoff. Enough said.
The hero looks like the Fat Elvis version of David Hasselhoff. Enough said.
The previous commenter got confused somehow.
There were two devices. The one in Paris healed people but the one in Russia killed people. The men that injured and killed and then stayed so were at the Russian site. I wonder why they didn't bring up this difference when considering which of the devices they should attack, but I suppose that is asking for too much from a movie like this.
Now if the poster wanted to talk about the bad things in the movie he could have brought up the dialog or perhaps the poorly thought out bad guys, or some of the other quick fixes the movie took. The bad guys didn't seem to have much reason for their decisions other than a fear of something different. They also seemed to miss a major plot point after all of their study.
So while the movie isn't that good it did at least stay consistent. I wonder if we will be seeing a third movie in a few years to help further explain/muddy the water.
There were two devices. The one in Paris healed people but the one in Russia killed people. The men that injured and killed and then stayed so were at the Russian site. I wonder why they didn't bring up this difference when considering which of the devices they should attack, but I suppose that is asking for too much from a movie like this.
Now if the poster wanted to talk about the bad things in the movie he could have brought up the dialog or perhaps the poorly thought out bad guys, or some of the other quick fixes the movie took. The bad guys didn't seem to have much reason for their decisions other than a fear of something different. They also seemed to miss a major plot point after all of their study.
So while the movie isn't that good it did at least stay consistent. I wonder if we will be seeing a third movie in a few years to help further explain/muddy the water.
Having watched and enjoyed Epoch last week, I was looking forward to this. It wasn't too disappointing, but the first one was definitely better. The actors were actually worse than in the first, which is quite a feat. The plot was somewhat interesting, but once again not nearly as good as the original. The director took this in a much more religious direction, which I think was a very bad idea. The introduction of Mason's kid was a horribly contrived plot point, that lead up to a horribly predictable conclusion. It wasn't all bad though...the Torus's looked as good as ever, and I quite liked the idea of an "evil" Torus. Overall this is worth watching if you're a fan of the first one, but don't be expecting much.
5.5/10
5.5/10
Did you know
- TriviaBefore the Torus is unlocked and entered, one of the displays used to monitor technical data is exactly the same display used in Deep Core (2000).
- GoofsThe text graphic displayed when showing Manila, Philippines is misspelled "MANILLA"
- ConnectionsFollows Epoch (2001)
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content