Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Holstra Boring, long, and too preachy.

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

elliott78212 Now I'm not saying its 2012 I have seen worse movies on the sci-fi channel. A likable cast of B & D list actors, some moments of unintended hilarity, and decent special FX, make this a popcorn movie for the whole family. The beginning made me laugh this dude on a bike not gonna giveaway anything there you will judge for yourself. Now some reviewers have talked about the bad science the over the top this and that but I think any film like this we suspend one part of belief just to watch and enjoy none of these type films is totally plausible so putting that aside is important, like seriously as good as 2012, or Day after Tomorrow were you have to admit they were no more realistic just bigger budget. I thought this was better than Earthquake with Charleton Heston.

edwagreen The usual disaster movie with its host of characters with their inter-personal relationships being shown as they prepare to battle a disaster. Three earthquakes in one day in the western part of the country may be too much to take, but this is what makes for an interesting story.The governor of California is a woman who is divorced and is in night clothes as her ex-husband and daughter go off for a camping trip.Beau Bridges shows emotion as our nervous president. The FEMA guy is not at all like Michael Brown of the Bush Administration. Once he realizes what's going on, he literally throws himself into the solution which will cost him his life.The problem with the film is that the characters are terribly cliché- the doctor and FEMA director, estranged as well as a surgeon and his wife. It seems that disasters always brings out the best in people. People come together as a cohesive unit to fight off the evil elements. We've just seen so much of this before.

bresea4 I love disaster movies, so I was eager to watch 10.5 when it first appeared on TV. I didn't care if it was hokey; I still loved them, but from the previews, this one looked good. Only problem was, 10.5 made me sick and I had to turn it off. I don't mean I was sickened by the plot or dialogue or the acting. I mean the constant jerky camera gave me motion sickness. With frustration, I clicked it off and wished I could've talked to the director. What WAS he/she thinking? When it came on again, and it's showing as a rerun right now, I thought I'd try it again and I've managed to watch approx one hour by looking away from the screen most of the time. But I finally gave up. Please, people. Keep those cameras still!

Enchorde Recap: Suddenly disaster strikes Seattle. A huge earthquake devastates the entire city. Soon thereafter an even bigger earthquake strikes northern California (chasing and devouring a train for instance). The president assembles a team of the top experts in the field to find out what is going on. Dr Samantha Hill is on that team and has a theory. She believes a deep (really deep - I think she stated 700 km deep which is astounding considering that the Earths crust is at most 100 km thick (I'm not sure about the last figure, but 100 km is larger than all I could find)) hidden fault is responsible and that the earthquakes are separate but connected. And that is not enough. She predicts that next quake will strike San Francisco. But she has problems convincing anyone that her theory is correct. Until she is proved right that is.Comments: This is one of the biggest clichés ever. I doubt that the writers had any ideas of their own at all. Each and every step of the plot is predictable and typical of this kind of movie (and often stolen from another movie, for example Armageddon). All characters have troubles in their relationships at the beginning, but of course all reconcile (quickly and easily) during the movie. Each and every character is also deeply stereotypical. Thin like paper and not developing anything. Motives are blunt and typical clichés.I still wonder why in way too many bad movies the final solution is nukes. Here the nature is behaving badly, and of course the solution is to bomb it back in line. I'm not kidding. They are actually going to detonate nuclear warheads to force nature back in line, and to stop more earthquakes.I am also amazed that this production got nominated to an Emmy for best special effects. My friend and me frequently commented how horrible they looked. It is never any doubt that models and toys were used for most of the action-shots. Especially when the quake are chasing the train (Yes, it actually is. I kid you not) it is so bluntly clear we are watching a toy train-set in a set it is funny. The same goes for many cars and trucks and whenever water floods anywhere. The plot outline speaks of tsunamis too, but I never saw one though.In spite of all this, and in spite that it is really long (165 min) it never becomes too dull. Sure, you know how it will end right after the introductions are made and every event is predictable and typical of the movie, but something happens all the time. And you can sit there and be amazed how stupid they are all the time. But I never got really bored, I got to give it that at least.Finally I can't believe that it got a sequel...4/10