Stonehenge Apocalypse

I found Stonehenge Apocalypse to be quite entertaining. To put it into perspective, this was a low budget movie and so the viewers expectations should not be 'Star Wars'. But even with that, I believe the story line was good and the actors did an excellent job. There were some loose moments, but having seen enough science fiction movies (even the bad ones), I can assure you that this was a good and entertaining movie.

I read some of the previous reviews and found them quite negative. There was one review (seems from a SciFi fan) that seemed to be closer to what I had experienced (I am also a hardcore SciFi fan).

Don't expect 'Star Wars' from this and you will be quite entertained. People who consider themselves SciFi fans should definitely check this movie out.

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..

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).

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.

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.