Stonehenge Apocalypse

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.

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.

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 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 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).