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.

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.

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 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.

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.