Stonehenge Apocalypse

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).

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.

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.

STONEHENGE APOCALYPSE sees those hacks at the SyFy Channel turn their attentions to the UK with a disaster story set around the titular archaeological site. Turns out there's an ancient, alien machine buried deep beneath the stones, a machine which might well spell disaster for mankind.

What this all boils down to is the usual doomsday-disaster stuff, with lots of science types running around and panicking and military types barking gruff orders. Inevitably there are some human villains in this one who need neutralising, although the heroes are on to a good thing with HOLBY CITY actor Peter Wingfield headlining the cast as the crusading doctor.

Wingfield is a lot better than this production deserves and to be fair it's pretty bad by genre standards, and about normal for SyFy standards. The Canadian locations look nothing like Britain and the CGI effects are pretty horrendous, but you could do worse as a time filler.

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.