Les 12 signes de l'Apocalypse

Not a bad film if you just want to relax and zone out. It's simplistic and predictable, but fine to watch. Effects are low budget, so you have to look past them. Overall, accept it for what it is. The only really negative thing I have to say about it is how much of a whiny wimp they made the son. 20 years old and no gumption; just ongoing whining.

The main protagonist carries the film, but he's supposed to when you know that the govt baddies haven't got a full brain cell between them.

Watched this movie while on my exercise bike and I am not sure what was more painful - my burning thighs or my burning eyes. Signs of why it should be called DISASTER! - Signs of the coming poo storm

1. The whole movie looks like it was shot in rural Canada - you want me to believe you are in Peru try not have Canadian Pine trees in the scene behind you.

2. The graphics were rendered by Community College students.

3.The actors and actresses all play typical one dimensional characters. Teenage soon - aggressive hates his Dad, Dad loves his son but can't communicate to him.

4. Roping in Christopher Lioyd to play none other than a scientist - and a drunk one at that! I reckon he was really drunk for the roll once he realized what a crap movie he was on. Oh the things we do to pay the bills dear Christoper.

5. Plot holes filled with poo

6. The so called Dept of Defense unit act as though they are managing an order at McDonalds.

7. Car out runs a tsunami!!!!!

8 The Dept of Defense leader goes in ALONE!? in the final showdown and tells the heli piolt to f off like he is some badass then he proceeds to fight like a school kid. While the main lead scientist who is suppose to be a big nerd seems to fight like he was a pro wrestler when the time comes for it.

9. Most "events" involve using giant fans to blow lots of dirt around - waiting for when poo would hit the fan. Tornado can suck up a woman but cant lift a truck or anything around them..

10. Syfy channel funding.

I can see the ambition but its better to pool some more money to make a better movie (please spend more money on FX) than produce little poo storms :-)

There is a scene where they threw in a saying from Back to the Future "Great Scott" Dr Emmitt Brown says this on the classic "Back to the Future"I think the actors all knew this was one big joke of a movie and where to busy trying to impress Christopher Lloyd than worry about the poo storm of a movie they were on.

Worst special effects ever and most clichés in the book. OK so its a made for TV movie but there are some standards worth adhering to like plausibility for example yes even in a fantasy. You immediately feel sorry for Neil Martin (Joel Gretsch) that he's the father of the dumbest most self satisfied... (My University professor dad is so stupid) ...half wit in the land. A boy, Colin Martin (Reilly Dolman) with so little intuition or empathy, not to mention an annoying smirk of self satisfaction that right the first moment you are hoping he gets struck by lightening. Also this thing of the characters watching as a disaster rolls towards them when you are screaming "Run, run you dumb... 'chappie, fellows...' (you know what I mean)" is so insulting to the intelligence. Yes I can understand people freezing and dying on the spot but not almost dying because they are just too dumb to move, especially as one is a professor, "Ooh look Cleetus, duh there's a big bolder coming down from duh sky and its going to hit us if we don't duh move!" The boy rubbishes the father's every theory and suggestion. He needs a good slap!. This kid was serving coffee from a stall at the beginning of the movie with no apparent understanding of science. "Plausibility?" You'd think that the father would have had a smarter son, unless of course he was doing booze and smoking grass in his younger child creating days or at least mom was. Meanwhile they've acquired a girl called Sophie (Andrea Brooks) also a scientist... kind of, and during a chase scene, between her and the boy, they run through a gamut of hysterical physical emotions that would take most movies two hours to justify. Anyway the plot rumbles on using every cliché in the book, narrow escapes, implausibly long fights and a member of the CIA in a helicopter so small he could only just fit next to the pilot. The CIA running out of cash? Perhaps the production company was. Just what Christopher Lloyd is doing in this movie is anybody's guess, still I did enjoy his ten minutes (or thereabouts). My favourite scene in the whole thing is the very last scene, the tying up of loose ends where Joel Gretsch makes a speech to camera meanwhile behind him, his son and the girl who have shown virtually no interest in each other, suddenly make meaningful eye contact - if you know what I mean - and go into an immediate embrace behind him thrusting their tongues down each other's throats. THAT had me rolling in the aisles. Truth be told, it was a lousy script and a tight budget that did for this movie..... in my opinion.

I've been a professor, chair, director & partner. Yet I had a phase of reading & enjoying Mills & Boon books and I enjoyed doing so. Watching Apocalypse Tomorrow (Sky Sci-fi) just now, it's fair to say there's a whole genre of TV movie that is as beyond criticism as Mills & Boon is. This film and others like it are the scifi equivalent of Mills & Boon. Formulaic, cheap, predictable, knocked out as a script over a latte at Starbucks. Yet why not? There's room for low art like this.

Criticising these films is as pointless as criticising Mills and Boon as literature. Pretty girls and guys, heroes and villains, mcguffins aplenty and cameos for one vaguely recognisable scifi genre face. Added to the often preposterous plot (one man links the zodiac to world ending events and only he sees it) these films are just the TV equivalent of.fast food. Enjoy the burger and move on.

"Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" is a very generic and stereotypical disaster movie that follows the dummies handbook of how to make a disaster movie. Everything in the movie was so predictable and scripted that you saw it coming a mile away. And this really brought down the overall enjoyment of the movie.

Sure, the movie was entertaining enough for what it is, but if you have seen any other disaster movie, then you basically have seen this one as well - in theory.

The story is about a series of disasters that happen around the world, and the future of the entire planet rests in the hands of a few people that run against time to save the Earth.

Yeah, basically the same as most other disaster movies. And for some odd reason all these events were happening all around these people. It just didn't make sense. Why would all these cataclysmic events take place around these and not at random locations around the world? Effects-wise, then "Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" was adequate. The effects worked well enough for what they were supposed to portray. But they weren't mind-blowing or overly impressive. So don't get your hopes up for these.

As for the acting, well people were doing good enough jobs with their given roles. Joel Gretch was the one who carried the movie, no doubt about it.

"Zodiac: Signs of the Apocalypse" is a very average run-of-the-mill disaster movie that offers nothing new to the genre. You watch this movie once and never again.