Stonehenge Apocalypse

I was moved so much by this film to register at IMDb just so i could warn anybody who has not yet watched this film to save them from what must be described as cringe worthy agony.

The acting was dire, the sets i think where built by the pupils of the primary school that they had taken over. The pyramid in Maine was superb.

I was amazed to see the terraform had already started with the mountain ranges surrounding Stonehenge on Salisbury PLAIN !! noun: a large area of flat land with few trees. Compare with prairie.

It was only redeemed by the fact that it was so bad i wanted to watch more of it to see what else they could get wrong.

If you like that sort of pain then this ones for you..

In amongst all this mess is actually quite a good story. If it had been written by Clive Cussler or Michael Crichton it could have been a very good book.

As it is though its not a good film. The acting is poor as is the way the story is told.

The first half is set in the UK but clearly filmed in the US. Special effects are just what you would expect.

The science involved is truly laughable and its clear nobody did any research whatsoever.

Even though the bad things about this film massively outweigh the good it still put a smile on my face and it made me want to watch to the end to see what happened.

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.

So, the world is ending. That's a plot device you'll see a lot of in the next two years. We've already seen it in "2012" and now SyFy has taken a crack at it, somehow trying to connect Stonehenge to the pyramids and electromagnetic energy.

We can already say the budget and effects are bad because it's a SyFy film, and I think everyone knows what they're getting into regarding that. But what is up with the plot. Some have tried to defend the film, saying it has more plot than "2012" and maybe they're right. But it is still a plot that makes no sense.

There is no connection between the pyramids and Stonehenge. There is no way that ancient peoples knew about electromagnetism. The only way to try to make these ideas work is to throw in aliens or something, and that's just ridiculous. If you're going to end the world in a movie, make it something at leas based roughly on real science.

And please, please, please case an actress who can pronounce "Stonehenge". I know Britons say "WeekEND" instead of "WEEKend", but here the emphasis is on STONE, not HENGE. There are other kinds of henges, thus the need to clarify it's a stone one. Thank you.

I was drawn to this film, or at least my girlfriend was, upon seeing that Misha Collins was in it - she loves him in 'Supernatural' and has practically converted me into a fan too. But how would he stand up by himself, without those Winchester boys and Crowley to support him? The answer is, not that bad actually.

This is your typical low budget Sy-Fy film which uses CGI to drive a usually weak plot forward. A group of scientists unearth a skeleton and a piece of machinery near Stonehenge. They accidentally trigger a countdown to the apocalypse, potentially dooming all of mankind. Collins plays Jacob, a misunderstood scientist trying to save everything. In truth he plays it in a very Castiel tongue in cheek way (just without the wings and grace). Torri Higginson plays Kaycee who delivers in an unoffensive manner, much like the rest of the cast, there aren't many moments when the acting is cheesy - it's more a case that they do their best without over or under acting. There were blatant plot holes and gaffes galore, the CGI was shockingly bad at times and it was obviously filmed in America rather than anywhere near England. It feels more like a low budget student film rather than your usual Sy-Fy trash, which actually surprised me. I watch a lot of rubbish films and I expected this to be one of those, but in truth it was slightly classier than some of the other rubbish I watch. It's got a little bit of action, a little pace, and enough of a plot and script to keep me entertained. For this reason I'm giving it a 5 out of 10 - not offensive rubbish that I'd avoid, but likewise not a noteworthy addition to the cinematographic world.