54 reviews
I've seen worse.
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.
- rickhibdon
- Aug 25, 2018
- Permalink
Details, details
- armac-674-862797
- Feb 28, 2010
- Permalink
Quantum Apocalypse: Pretty damn terrible scyfy nonsense
Scyfy originals are never going to meet critical acclaim but often they hold a certain charm about them that makes them watchable in that dumb viewing type of way.
Sadly Quantum Apocalypse doesn't have that charm and is one of their many many many many meteor apocalypse films and when you've seen one you've officially seen them all.
Containing that common scyfy original side plot about a step parent and resentful step child I do question why we see this so often.
Credit however where credit is due, many of the cast are quite competent including the highly underused Gigi "Farscape" Edgley and Rhett Giles who puts in a career best performance as an autistic.
Make no mistake they don't make up for this embarrassing clichéd mess but they do bring levity to what could have been one of the scyfy channels worst if they weren't present.
The Good: Gigi Edgley Usual Scyfy pseudo science
The Bad: Usual Scyfy pseudo science
Soundtrack
Offensively recycled and unoriginal
Dumb ending
Things I learnt from this movie:
Gigi Edgley needs to pick her roles better
Sadly Quantum Apocalypse doesn't have that charm and is one of their many many many many meteor apocalypse films and when you've seen one you've officially seen them all.
Containing that common scyfy original side plot about a step parent and resentful step child I do question why we see this so often.
Credit however where credit is due, many of the cast are quite competent including the highly underused Gigi "Farscape" Edgley and Rhett Giles who puts in a career best performance as an autistic.
Make no mistake they don't make up for this embarrassing clichéd mess but they do bring levity to what could have been one of the scyfy channels worst if they weren't present.
The Good: Gigi Edgley Usual Scyfy pseudo science
The Bad: Usual Scyfy pseudo science
Soundtrack
Offensively recycled and unoriginal
Dumb ending
Things I learnt from this movie:
Gigi Edgley needs to pick her roles better
- Platypuschow
- Aug 16, 2017
- Permalink
Disastrous Nonsense
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!
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!
- mani-nanna-650-157348
- Jan 31, 2010
- Permalink
Hard to put into words just how bad this film is.
My wife and I are Science fiction devotees and thus took a chance on this film when offered as a World Premiere by Comcast On Demand (should have realized it would be dreadful since the charge was only $3.99, much lower than most of its new fare). We managed to sit through all of it, mouths agape at the temerity of anyone actually making this load of rubbish. Difficult to put into words just how awful this film is, much worst than a middle school production - lame plot, dreadful dialogue, astonishingly unappealing cast, holes in the script, continuity problems, laughable acting, bad sound quality, absolutely nothing to recommend it. When Comcast offers a world premiere, duck! This film makes the usual fare on the Saturday Afternoon Science Fiction Channel look like Citizen Kane.
"Awful beyond comprehension" does not even begin to explain...
There is really no other way for me to express what this movie is than this: A disaster movie where the only real disaster is the movie itself.
When reading the other reviews of this movie I thought to myself "Well, when a movie is bad enough I can usually laugh at it for being so bad and have a good enough time watching it anyway" and so I decided to see this with my own eyes. I implore you, dear reader, NOT to repeat my mistake! There is not enough alcohol, nitrous gas or low standards on the surface of the entire planet for anyone to find any enjoyable aspect in this movie at all.
Alphabetical order of flawed elements. Just because I want everyone to understand how bad this is.
Actors - The best ones are simply bad, the rest are horrible. Some of them at least make a bit of an effort.
Cameras and angles - Static shooting almost all the way, but it's actually not that bad compared to when the cameras move. In one scene where a character is driving, you'd think they bolted a $50 VHS camera to the hood and had him actually drive around with that.
Computer effects - You can easily spot them, if the graphic Ultra Low quality doesn't tip you off, the absence of the laws of physics will. Many movies from the 90's had Better computer generated effects. Even some of the Bad movies.
Other effects - I could not find a single one that was just slightly low-budget or just had a mild flaw. Every last one was flat out bad.
Script - Someone should be unemployed by now...
The rest - You probably already get the picture.
Summary: Gather your neighbors and have the most stupid one write the script, the most incompetent one manage effects, the ones with the worst poker faces be the actors and finally let someone with impaired motor skills handle the camera and you will make a masterpiece compared to this. Unfortunately I'm not joking.
When reading the other reviews of this movie I thought to myself "Well, when a movie is bad enough I can usually laugh at it for being so bad and have a good enough time watching it anyway" and so I decided to see this with my own eyes. I implore you, dear reader, NOT to repeat my mistake! There is not enough alcohol, nitrous gas or low standards on the surface of the entire planet for anyone to find any enjoyable aspect in this movie at all.
Alphabetical order of flawed elements. Just because I want everyone to understand how bad this is.
Actors - The best ones are simply bad, the rest are horrible. Some of them at least make a bit of an effort.
Cameras and angles - Static shooting almost all the way, but it's actually not that bad compared to when the cameras move. In one scene where a character is driving, you'd think they bolted a $50 VHS camera to the hood and had him actually drive around with that.
Computer effects - You can easily spot them, if the graphic Ultra Low quality doesn't tip you off, the absence of the laws of physics will. Many movies from the 90's had Better computer generated effects. Even some of the Bad movies.
Other effects - I could not find a single one that was just slightly low-budget or just had a mild flaw. Every last one was flat out bad.
Script - Someone should be unemployed by now...
The rest - You probably already get the picture.
Summary: Gather your neighbors and have the most stupid one write the script, the most incompetent one manage effects, the ones with the worst poker faces be the actors and finally let someone with impaired motor skills handle the camera and you will make a masterpiece compared to this. Unfortunately I'm not joking.
- zetoss_rules
- Jan 28, 2010
- Permalink
Unbelievably Absurd and Lame
and with Fake Reviews
In the city of Parish, the Major Ben Marshall lives with his autistic brother Terry, his son Leo, his daughter Samantha and his second wife Lynne. When a comet changes its route and collides on Earth, the scientists discover that an anomaly is the cause and they bring two geniuses to join their team in the research. They find that the anomaly is a gravitational vacuum indeed and mankind is doomed to annihilation. But Terry convinces his brother Ben to drive him to Houston to save the planet.
"Quantum Apocalypse" is an unbelievably absurd and lame film. It is amazing how awful it is: story, screenplay, director, cast, special effects, characters, nothing works in this terrible movie. I found strange that three users "loved" this crap and I found the typical of fake reviews since the three users have only one review in IMDb. Unfortunately I am not able to go back to the past like in the story and in the end I lost 94 minutes of my life watching this dreadful film. My vote is one.
Title (Brazil): "O Apocalipse" ("The Apocalypse")
"Quantum Apocalypse" is an unbelievably absurd and lame film. It is amazing how awful it is: story, screenplay, director, cast, special effects, characters, nothing works in this terrible movie. I found strange that three users "loved" this crap and I found the typical of fake reviews since the three users have only one review in IMDb. Unfortunately I am not able to go back to the past like in the story and in the end I lost 94 minutes of my life watching this dreadful film. My vote is one.
Title (Brazil): "O Apocalipse" ("The Apocalypse")
- claudio_carvalho
- Jun 24, 2010
- Permalink
Read a book instead
- ag-hodgson
- Feb 13, 2010
- Permalink
Not a good movie, and I loved it.
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.
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.
Awful beyond any description
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
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
- TheLittleSongbird
- Jun 21, 2011
- Permalink
Disatser Movie
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.
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 was better than average, for this type of B Movie.
All the characters were likable and interesting. The unlikely hero was a nice touch to the story. The locations although average were good enough. The special effects were extremely good, a bit brief but they served the movie as well. The story has some very interesting elements. The subplot had my imagination thinking of future ideas for sci-fi movies. This is a very good late night flick to cozy up and watch with someone. I've only recently got into watching B rated Apocalyptic movies. I've seen quite a bit of them. But this will be one of my favorites. Because there's plenty of fun and fear here. Plus an evil villain that springs out of nowhere to great effect. And by the way... It has a good ending!
Good story line, Bad budget
Beyond dreadful
- clarkandrew
- Nov 9, 2010
- Permalink
How low can you go?
It is too bad you can't rate with 0... IMDb crew has to think about adding this. Even giving it a one star can seem unfair. I think that Hollywood screen writers could use a cold shower. Icy one, to be more accurate. The characters are lousy, to say the least. How many stereotypes can one use????? The crazy blonde physics genius, the semi-Asian new hot wife, the hot blonde secretary, the cheerleader and her conflict with an old boyfriend, the step mom - son conflict... should i continue? The unfolding of the action... great! Hahaha! just a small joke. The special effects remind me of Ed Wood movies, as if this wasn't 2012...
I urge the people not to waste 1 and some hours of their lives on this.
I urge the people not to waste 1 and some hours of their lives on this.
Sy-Fy Channel does it again
- moustasch1
- Dec 17, 2011
- Permalink
Some early faults, but it's just a $2million TV movie. Plenty of good points.
A lot of folks are trashing this movie without understanding the context.
a. It's a TV movie b. Budget was an estimated $2.5million With that in mind, I'd like to review this one in a more technical sense for the film students out there, and highlight where I think it was good.
First, some obvious faults.
Some of the special effects are lame, other acceptable. The lame ones should have been seen as such and cut.
There are some sound problems which hint at them having lost on-set sound and having to resort to the audio recorded by the camera. Folks, there is a thing called dubbing. Or at least try to equalise the camera audio.
The casting of Peter Jurasik as the President was insane beyond words. Not because of his acting at all, but he simply does not look the part. Just look at the bit part actors surrounding him, they look the part, he stands out like a sore thumb.
The casting of Gigi Edgley as one of the 'rock-star scientists' was good, and after a very worrying start, she gets into the role and makes good of it. However, simply having a dash of green in your hair and wearing a tie around your neck when wearing a normal dress does not make you a 'rock-star scientist'. It makes the wardrobe and makeup dept look crap.
That's me done with the negatives. Let's review the brighter side...
Other IMDb sections claim this was filmed using a sub $2,000 Panasonic AG-HVX200 HD video camera. Well, I think the result is superb.
Throughout this film, the cinematography is first rate. Lots of very nice camera moves, including several closeups that turn into running tracking shots. Framing and lighting is always good.
The plot may have some holes, but hey, it's a TV movie, so don't take it so seriously.
Lots of location filming, which must have eaten into the budget. This helps keep away from the TV movie format, and keeps the thing moving.
On balance, some big minuses, but for a TV film, very well technically executed on the whole.
Epilogue....
About the bad acting. The director, Justin Jones, was not inexperienced. But as Second Unit Director or Assistant Director (57 titles), he perhaps did not have enough experience of spotting and correcting over acting.
That error mainly occurs in the first half of the film, along with most of the other 'faults'.
Conclusion: As a TV film, very well made, and watchable in my view. At no point does it fall apart, although it makes you start to cringe a little early on. I've seen a couple of worse Big Budget films costing far far more.
a. It's a TV movie b. Budget was an estimated $2.5million With that in mind, I'd like to review this one in a more technical sense for the film students out there, and highlight where I think it was good.
First, some obvious faults.
Some of the special effects are lame, other acceptable. The lame ones should have been seen as such and cut.
There are some sound problems which hint at them having lost on-set sound and having to resort to the audio recorded by the camera. Folks, there is a thing called dubbing. Or at least try to equalise the camera audio.
The casting of Peter Jurasik as the President was insane beyond words. Not because of his acting at all, but he simply does not look the part. Just look at the bit part actors surrounding him, they look the part, he stands out like a sore thumb.
The casting of Gigi Edgley as one of the 'rock-star scientists' was good, and after a very worrying start, she gets into the role and makes good of it. However, simply having a dash of green in your hair and wearing a tie around your neck when wearing a normal dress does not make you a 'rock-star scientist'. It makes the wardrobe and makeup dept look crap.
That's me done with the negatives. Let's review the brighter side...
Other IMDb sections claim this was filmed using a sub $2,000 Panasonic AG-HVX200 HD video camera. Well, I think the result is superb.
Throughout this film, the cinematography is first rate. Lots of very nice camera moves, including several closeups that turn into running tracking shots. Framing and lighting is always good.
The plot may have some holes, but hey, it's a TV movie, so don't take it so seriously.
Lots of location filming, which must have eaten into the budget. This helps keep away from the TV movie format, and keeps the thing moving.
On balance, some big minuses, but for a TV film, very well technically executed on the whole.
Epilogue....
About the bad acting. The director, Justin Jones, was not inexperienced. But as Second Unit Director or Assistant Director (57 titles), he perhaps did not have enough experience of spotting and correcting over acting.
That error mainly occurs in the first half of the film, along with most of the other 'faults'.
Conclusion: As a TV film, very well made, and watchable in my view. At no point does it fall apart, although it makes you start to cringe a little early on. I've seen a couple of worse Big Budget films costing far far more.
It really is that bad. Waste your time watching something pointless with decent action and graphics instead.
Damn you, SyFy! (shakes fist at sky)
Disaster movie turns out to be a disaster!
- paul_haakonsen
- Jan 24, 2010
- Permalink
Awful, unfortunately...
- Brazilian78
- Apr 14, 2010
- Permalink
I love this movie!!!!
Not Bad for a B-rated Movie
Didn't like the ending though. Even on a B-rated budget they could've done better and should've done better. That's what really killed it. I was like... really... are you serious? Anyway aside from the bad special effects and such, the acting wasn't the worst and the autistic guy did a great job being autistic. The story was rushed and silly in parts but that's to be expected. All in all I feel they did a decent job except for the ending. Thank you.
- abcizdaman
- Aug 9, 2020
- Permalink
"My dad is going to make sure everything is OK"
Quantum of solace for my brain
- dodgetazer
- Jul 4, 2012
- Permalink