A Descoberta em Stonehenge

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.

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 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.

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.