Apocalipse

Acting was OK, the plot was survivable if week. The mix between set,CGI and model was a bit dodgy, but worst was the sound production - I kept missing little bits of dialog. I am also not sure if it was the direction or the production (I am not a film buff), but I did find I had to keep piecing together what was going on, when I felt this should have been given to me by either (both) production & direction.

Biggest let down - name of the movie - Quantum erm... - hu - nothing to do with it. And the box cover showing a large bridge getting smashed - nothing so dramatic happened. Still with a budget of $2.5M, not such a bad job, if you are not a B-movie fan, don't watch this movie, but for me it hit the sweat-spot.

I don't why I keep watching these SyFy movies, mostly it's because of curiosity or that there is nothing else interesting on. I do dislike a lot of their output, but I have only despised about 6 so far other than this(2010:Moby Dick, The Apocalypse, Titanic II, Mega Piranha, Dinocroc vs. Supergator and Alien vs. Hunter).

Quantum Apocalypse is down there with the movies of theirs I despised. It is an awful film beyond any description and has no redeeming qualities. The camera work and editing are so static it is painful on the eyes and the effects are crude and look fake. The script is cheesy and full of holes and there is some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard in my life.

And to make things worse, the direction is pretty much wretched, the pace meanders all over the place and the story is dull and hard to take. The characters are so poorly written and stereotypical I did not care for them at all, while the acting is dreadful, even those who visibly try are bad.

All in all, awful and one of the worst SyFy movies you'll ever see. 0/10 Bethany Cox

I would generally agree that the dialogue and acting was of a rather dismal standard for this movie, but then again, that's what it is -- a low budget film, without the resources or aspiration to do better.

I kept watching because of the extraordinary acting of the man who played the uncle with what appears to be a variant of Asperger's syndrome. I think it's the actor Rhett Giles, but can't confirm, as during the film his name (and that of too many other characters) was mentioned too few times to even establish his identity for the casual viewer.

I was very impressed with this actor's ability and would like to see more. He had the mannerisms down to a tee and the scriptwriters certainly knew the aptest lines to supply him with.

I thought the actor playing the mayor of the town, the brother of the character named above, did a competent job with the dialogue given him. I thought he had more on-screen presence than the man chosen to play the president.

The young man who played his son also showed some charisma, maybe it was just his dark good looks, but I am sure he will find other roles.

I was surprised and pleased to see Stephanie Jacobsen, an Australian who no longer sounds like one. But she's had significant roles in The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Battlestar Galactica, so I'm not sure why she would agree to sign on for a project that must have had so little funding behind it.

Despite the loss of 90 minutes when I could have been doing something else, I'm still glad I saw the slightly strange uncle character -- whoever played him (if it was Rhett Giles), he deserves an honourable mention.

It is what it is. A cheapie made for TV movie. However I did manage all the way through it in one sitting. It's another "end of the world" movie. And of course we all know it'll end well. Effects are typical TV poor, but effects don't make the movie (for me anyway) Typically poor acting, though there are a few exceptions. Most notably the savant uncle. Who is actually quite good, and believable. I know enough about computers and quantum physics to know crap when I hear it (which it is) However.... the ONE thing that saved the movie for me. In the early scene where the uncle and niece are making pancakes, and he says his are better than the mix. Niece says "How do you know? You've never made them before?" He replies "Yes I have! 762 times" I missed that connection in the beginning. Later after the silly time "rewind" it's repeated. He says "Yes I have! 76THREE times". He knows! He's the only one that realizes they are in a time "loop" and destined to repeat it. He's more knowledgeable than ALL of them... yet tells no one. I give it a lot of credit for that subtle surprise.

I am the type of guy, who can watch Commando with Arnie and enjoy it, as well as watch An Andalusian Dog by Luis Bunuel and enjoy it too. I like great movies but time to time I enjoy bad ones, even the movies that are UBER-BAD, in "so bad that it's good" sense.

This one is not the case. You will actually feel the physical pain while trying to watch this thing.

Why didn't I turn off the screen after halfway through? Well, to be honest, I just HAD to know how far the idiocy can go.

Now about flaws...

1. When you have budget of 2,5 lemons, just DON'T, don't try to make another 2012 movie. (2012 was bad enough even with it's big bag budget). Effects were not only horrible in technical way, but most of them were making no sense whatsoever.

2. It's not necessary to find a star for your movie. There are lots of talented people who can act and are not stars. In fact, I like bad acting, cause It makes me laugh. But in this film, you will not see even that. Except some of the actors who OVERACT terribly, you can't find ANY acting at all.

3. Scientific background of the story: OK... how many times do I have to use the word nonsense? In fact, transsexual giraffe, trying to take over the world with the help of green cockroaches, sounds more believable than the bubble that characters use here to justify the existence of this rubbish.

4. Characters. Well, you just CAN'T swallow it. In fact I think that's where the genius of the director of this movie is hidden. It is really, really hard to create characters, more unbelievable than the ones in this movie. Movie makers just set the milestone in that direction I think.

5. Plot. Well, at least I can't say that there were many plot holes. Because, to have a plot-hole, first of all you need to have a plot. Does this film have one? NO!

Overall! Terrible, unwatchable movie!