M MALIK This movie is totally hilarious it is more like a sci-fi parody & irony is that almost everyone was involved in making this nonsense actually are very serious about it you name it from the cast,crew & etc.I love independent films but films like these make me laugh & people say Michael bay or Roland Emmerich are lame directors,it was a low budget film but still better then quantum of solace 2008 the James bond 007 film with Daniel Craig & Die Another Day 2002 is a classic compared to that.The story is about a comet coming in to earths orbit & scientists are going crazy as time is running out & end of the world is near.The dialogs & conversations between characters is so serious even more then a Stanley Kubrick movie just an excuse so the audience will relate to it but they failed to cover up the cheap cgi, bad acting & garbled archive footage.First the flood & disaster comes then later these guys launch a ICBM(missile) at some place altering the time & things goes back to the way they were everyone lives happily ever after wow i mean what a story totally Oscar worthy.Plus who can forget the story angle where random thugs rape the guys girlfriend & hero gets shot helpless,whoever wrote this script must be on drugs.As for the cast there are some hot women but i liked Kristen Quintrall she is one hot eye candy that's it probably the only one people should check out this film for.Overall Quantum Apocalypse 2010 is a film for ones who don't like quantum of solace 2008 my rating is 2/10.

rperry-17 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.

TheLittleSongbird 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

Brazilian78 Really awful movie, I completely agree with previous reviews. But... you know... I HAD to watch it and see for myself, which I regret.*** SPOILER *** The movie was watchable up to the point where the police officer gives her weapon to her stepson (?). That was lame. Worse than that was the guy getting shot. That was pure drama and I had to stop watching the movie to come here and comment. I thought this was a TV movie, not a trash movie. Its mood looks serious but you can't really watch things like this and think they meant to be serious. Its a joke, but its NOT fun.If you want to watch a great TV movie, go for The Day After. Thats a really good movie.