Stonehenge Apocalypse

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.

I liked this movie, OK it is absurd but somehow it managed to keep my interest alive. The scene in which the temple rises out of the earth is simply superb. The characters are believable and the acting is reasonably good. I don't expect George Lucas, Stanley Kubrick or even Wes Craven on most SyFy Saturday night movies, I wanted a movie that wasn't completely stupid (OK, not completely SERIOUSLY stupid, it was absurd & knew it, & had fun with it) and with a nice interesting pace, & this movie was surely it. Of course I wouldn't dream of spending money to see it! Overall, better than most cheapo sci-fi movies, fair to good acting (I think the lead character plays Castiel on Supernatural).

I'm happy that this movie has not disproved my theory. The theory is that with the possible exception of 2001, there never has been a decent science fiction movie. This is as bad as most of them. Actually I was planning on a 5 vote until the va-va-varoom-bang-bang-I-missed car chase/gun fight. That bumped it down to a 4. Then when I found out that it was shot in British Columbia but set in Maine (!!!)I dropped it again to a still overly generous 3. What we have here is essentially a "Hey gang, let's save the planet" movie with a simplistic, cliché ridden, illogical, predictable plot and stock cardboard characters. Hey... That hard-ass American general was a classic. But he must have been a really important dude because he made all the life and death decisions in Great Britain. I suppose watching it was better than standing out in the snowstorm that raged outside. But not much.

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..

This was much better than I expected. It actually had an idea and a structure. It provided the "theory" that was missing from the much more extravagant 2012.

The ending not only tied the plot together, but gave a nice finishing touch to the story's hero. And the hero of the story was much more appealing than the self-righteous know-it-all that they typically feature in this type of movie.

If this movie had more impressive special effects and more style, it would be a superior version of the 2012 film. It is a mystery to me how 2012 got made without a real plot, but this movie that actually has a plot got made on such a small budget.